ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Brewing Industry (Beer Exports)

Peter Aldous: What steps her Department has taken to support the brewing industry in exporting beer.

Elizabeth Truss: Britain’s breweries are now exporting 1.1 billion pints to 113 countries every year. Thanks to UKTI’s efforts with the brewing industry, British beer is enjoyed around the world from Brussels to Buffalo to Bogota. Brewing is a valuable part of our £100 billion food and farming industry.

Peter Aldous: St Peter’s brewery in my constituency is a past recipient of the Queen’s award for enterprise and international trade. It has built up a successful export business to more than 30 countries, and it wants to grow further. To allow it to realise its full potential, will the Secretary of State work with me and the Treasury to consider whether the calculation of progressive beer duty relief can be changed?

Elizabeth Truss: I would be pleased to work with my hon. Friend and Treasury colleagues on that issue. I was delighted to visit his constituency last week to see plans for a new tidal barrier in Lowestoft, and in future I look forward to visiting St Peter’s brewery and perhaps sampling some of its fine ales.

Dairy Farmers

Gary Streeter: What steps she is taking to assist dairy farmers in the south-west.

George Eustice: Earlier this week I attended the northern dairy conference. Farmers—including those in the south-west—are experiencing tough conditions with prices having fallen significantly since spring. On 19 November I hosted a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum and we discussed a number of action points, including better country of origin labelling for British products in the EU, opening
	new markets for exports, and investing to improve competitiveness and add value to dairy products through the rural development programme. The south-west Dairy Crest factory at Davidstow has benefited from such public investment.

Gary Streeter: Because of dramatically falling prices, many milk producers and farmers in the west country are producing milk at a loss, which is clearly unsustainable. Can the Government offer any help, and any hope?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point. At current prices many farmers are indeed making a loss, and at the dairy supply chain forum we discussed volatility. The last two years have been a rollercoaster ride for the dairy industry—it had a dire year in 2012, last year was very good, but this year is bad again. We have considered whether we can develop a successful futures market, for example in skimmed milk powder or cheese products, to help farmers manage that volatility in future.

Margaret Ritchie: With volatility in the dairy industry impacting on farmers generally, does the Minister agree that the EU intervention threshold, which was agreed at 18p per litre in 2003, does not protect dairy farmers across the UK and is in urgent need of review? What representations will he make to Brussels on that?

George Eustice: I met Northern Ireland representatives from Dairy UK when I was in Brussels last week and they raised that point with me. The European Commission is looking at the intervention price, and our officials are working on what the appropriate price would be. Generally, an increase in that intervention price would tend to benefit other countries that have lower prices before it benefits UK farmers, but we are considering the issue.

Neil Parish: The dairy price of 25p and falling means that farmers are producing at a loss. The dairy trade adjudicator can look at parts of the trade, but are there more ways to deal with the price, especially of processed cheese in the supermarket sector? The price of milk is dealt with by supermarkets, but processed cheese is not.

George Eustice: I have considered those issues, which I discussed last week when I appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. My view is that our grocery code, together with the adjudicator, adequately covers retailers, and the Competition and Markets Authority has powers to consider issues further up the supply chain. Our dairy supply chain code is working successfully—the recent review by Alex Fergusson confirmed that—but we must focus on making it work better.

Roger Williams: Like many farmers across the country, dairy farmers do not trade directly with supermarkets but deal with processors and food manufacturers. Does the Minister believe that opening up the responsibility of the groceries code adjudicator would bring greater transparency to the marketplace?

George Eustice: As I said, the Competition and Markets Authority already has some ability to look further up the supply chain. The dairy supply chain code covers 85% to 90% of all production. Crucially, it gives farmers the ability to walk away from a contract at three months’ notice if they do not like it. They can shop around. The code is working successfully.

Food Poverty

Nicholas Dakin: What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

George Eustice: Research published in February by Warwick university found no systematic peer-reviewed UK research on why people turn to food aid. Subsequent reports by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty acknowledge that people turn to food aid for complex reasons. The best way of reducing poverty is to grow our economy and get people back into work. Since 2010, 1.7 million more people are in work. We have also increased the income tax personal allowance to remove more than 3 million of the lowest earners from taxation. Finally, we have helped the most vulnerable to have access to nutritious food by, for instance, providing free school meals, and through projects such as Healthy Start.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Minister agree not only that we should applaud people such as those who work for the Scunthorpe food bank, who do an absolutely first-class job, but that we should be ashamed that, in this year, in this century, people in one of the most prosperous countries in the world are surviving on food banks

George Eustice: I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the great work that food banks do. I have at least two in my constituency and plan to visit before the Christmas period—I met the leader last week. People turn to food aid for many complex reasons, including mental health problems. We should recognise that food aid is not limited to the UK and is a global phenomenon. We have seen a big increase in the use of food banks in the US and other European countries.

Tony Baldry: May I commend to my hon. Friend the “Feeding Britain” report, which was funded with support from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s charitable trust? The report makes recommendations to a number of different organisations, including directly to the food industry, such as encouraging the redistribution of fresh surplus food to food assistance providers and voluntary organisations. Will Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers meet the food industry and the supermarkets to go through the report’s recommendations for the food industry, and see what action the food industry and supermarkets can take?

George Eustice: Yes, we will meet retailers and the food industry. The Waste and Resources Action Programme already has a working group to look at how barriers to the redistribution of food can be removed. We have
	always been clear that the redistribution of food is far better than recycling, and it comes first in the waste hierarchy.

Kerry McCarthy: We have not made enough progress in the three years since I introduced my Food Waste Bill, which tried to highlight the fact that up to 40% of the food produced in this country does not get eaten. Rather than just having voluntary discussions, has the Minister considered making the industry start to donate the food that would otherwise be wasted?

George Eustice: We made progress with the first two rounds of the Courtauld commitment. We have reduced domestic household waste by 15%, and waste in the supply chain has been reduced by more than 8%. There is further to go and more to do, which is why the third round of the Courtauld commitment set ambitious targets.

Andrew Turner: Is the Minister aware that the great benefit of food banks, particularly Isle of Wight and Trussell food banks, is that they are controlled and run by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Those on the Isle of Wight are brilliantly organised and supported.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The strength of those charities is that they are run by volunteers and are unencumbered by bureaucracy. That is one reason why we have resisted calls to put reporting obligations on them. We want them to focus on doing their good work rather than on filling out bureaucratic forms for the Government.

Social Tariff (Water Companies)

Andrew McDonald: How many water companies offer a social tariff.

Dan Rogerson: Eight water companies in England and Wales offer a social tariff on top of the nationally mandated WaterSure scheme. Several more are in dialogue with their customers about introducing a social tariff next year.

Andrew McDonald: I welcome Northumbrian Water’s WaterSure tariff initiative to help low-income families, and I applaud its work with the StepChange debt charity and the award winning Know Your Money in Middlesbrough, but only six water companies are currently offering a social tariff to struggling customers, helping just over 25,000 people in total. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce regional disparities in support and end this postcode lottery?

Dan Rogerson: The important point to note about tariffs is that they are funded within water company areas. As money comes from those areas, it is important that water companies discuss with their customers what the right level of support is, as there are different situations in different areas. The number of schemes is expanding. I, too, welcome what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country. Northumbrian
	Water has worked hard to address these issues with its customers to ensure that it can take forward a scheme that works in its area.

Barry Sheerman: Many of us in Yorkshire want not only a social tariff, but a social conscience. Yorkshire Water is owned by a Singapore investment trust, our electricity is owned by the Germans and our gas by the Chinese. Foreign companies, such as Lidl and Aldi, do not seem to have the same corporate social responsibility and social conscience as other companies. What is the Minister doing about foreign-owned utilities, such as Yorkshire Water, that do not have as much of a social conscience?

Dan Rogerson: We have a strong regulatory system that looks at not just the value for money and investment that companies offer customers, but the transparency of their business models and how they operate. Yorkshire Water, for example, has a good debt management programme to help people who have in the past struggled to pay their bills. We are making progress on a whole range of issues, and I welcome the fact that companies are upping their game.

Angela Smith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) pointed out, rising water bills are adding to the cost of living crisis. With one in five customers struggling to pay, but only six water companies currently offering support to little more than 25,000 customers, will the Minister acknowledge that he needs to get to grips with this problem by adopting Labour’s national affordability scheme to end the current postcode lottery to which my hon. Friend referred, and to ensure that hard-pressed consumers get the support they need wherever they live?

Dan Rogerson: Since last year, water companies have been able to introduce schemes and they are doing so, but it is important that they take their customers with them and look at what works in their area. The schemes are not funded on a national basis. As I understand it, the Labour party’s proposal would not be funded on a national basis either, but in water company areas. It is important to look at the situation in each area.

Fisheries (Landing Obligation)

Eilidh Whiteford: What progress has been made on implementation of the landing obligation for fisheries.

George Eustice: The North sea and North Western Waters regional groups agreed a discard ban for the pelagic sector earlier this year. Those plans were subsequently approved by the European Commission and will be implemented from 1 January. The Government are now developing the regional discard plans needed to support the introduction of the demersal landing obligation from January 2016.

Eilidh Whiteford: The landing obligation comes into effect for the pelagic fleet in three weeks’ time and the revised regulations are still not in place. Of greater
	concern to me, however, is that there will be no consistent compliance regime for our boats and boats from non-EU countries fishing in our waters. That is unacceptable and it is undermining confidence in the policy before it has even got under way. Will the Minister look once again at the proposals brought forward by the industry to sort this out, and speak to the Commission?

George Eustice: I have had many discussions with the industry on the importance of having a level playing field on enforcement. Norwegian boats and other third-country boats with access to EU waters are required to abide by the discard plan. On enforcement, we got agreement at the EU-Norway deal just last week to ensure that that is now discussed. A working group will discuss how we ensure a level playing field.

Groceries Code Adjudicator (Fines)

Jim Fitzpatrick: What recent discussions her Department has had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the groceries code adjudicator’s ability to levy fines.

George Eustice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, policy responsibility for this issue rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, following concerns expressed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week to both the Secretary of State and me, I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for employment relations and consumer affairs, to bring this issue to her attention.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to hear that the Minister is on the case. Yesterday I received a written answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which said that cross-ministerial discussions are taking place. When are the groceries code adjudicator’s first investigations likely to conclude? Will the statutory instrument be laid by then to allow her the necessary tools, should she need them?

George Eustice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that introduced the supermarket adjudicator, and I supported the introduction of fines. At the moment, this matter is subject to cross-Government discussions, and we anticipate an outcome some time in the new year.

Anne McIntosh: Underlying the drop in dairy prices is the huge power imbalance between the small individual dairy farmer and the huge processor. It is not good enough that my hon. Friend is looking to beef up the voluntary code. Will he look closely at a statutory basis and extending the remit of the groceries code adjudicator to this very imbalanced relationship in dairy production?

George Eustice: If we were to have statutory oversight of the dairy supply chain code, we would have to put the code itself on a statutory basis. Because of EU legislation, however, that would make the code far
	weaker than what we have. For instance, farmers would not have the ability to walk away from contracts with three months’ notice. The course that my hon. Friend outlines would make things worse for farmers, not better.

River Thames (Cleanliness)

Mary Macleod: What recent assessment she has made of progress on improving the cleanliness of the River Thames.

Dan Rogerson: We are making good progress on cleaning up the River Thames, particularly in tackling the increasing raw sewage overflows into its tidal stretches. Thames Water will reduce overflows when the Lee tunnel becomes operational in 2015 and through upgrades to major sewage works across London. Once operational in 2023, the Thames tideway tunnel will capture almost all the remaining sewage overflows into the Thames in London.

Mary Macleod: Thames Water’s Mogden sewage works in Isleworth is the second largest of its kind in the UK. The company has pumped raw sewage into the Thames 23 times in the last year, and residents have struggled with odour from the plant for many years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a better way forward?

Dan Rogerson: I understand that Thames Water has spent about £30 million to address odour issues at the site and that Hounslow borough council is regularly monitoring it, but if issues remain for local residents, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them.

Flood Defences

Martin Vickers: How many flood defence schemes will be built as part of the Government’s six-year flood defence programme.

Daniel Kawczynski: How many flood defence schemes will be built as part of the Government's six-year flood defence programme.

Elizabeth Truss: With permission, I will answer questions 8 and 11 together.
	We will be investing £2.3 billion in more than 1,400 defence schemes over the next six years, protecting at least 300,000 homes and reducing overall flood risk by 5% by 2021.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals within the Humber flood risk management strategy for protecting 110,000 dwellings and 20,000 businesses. The £80 million announced in the autumn statement last week was extremely welcome, but when will decisions be taken on how to spend the £80 million, and will there be an early decision on future proposals?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues on their work to put forward such an ambitious proposal. The Environment Agency is considering the proposal in detail, and we will publish a review in July 2015. We were delighted last week to announce £80 million of funding to improve protection for more than 50,000 households around the Humber estuary.

Mr Speaker: I call Daniel Kawczynski. Oh dear, the fellow’s not here. Never mind. I call a Member who is always here: Mr Neil Carmichael.

Neil Carmichael: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for funding £750,000 of investment in protecting my constituency by improving and maintaining defences along the Severn estuary, notably at Lapper ditch at a cost of £500,000. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents, however, that this kind of investment and attention to the problem will be continued over the next few years?

Elizabeth Truss: This is the first time a Government have ever laid out a six-year forward capital spend proposal. It is an increase in real terms on the figure this Parliament, which in turn was an increase in real terms from the previous Parliament. We are also committing an additional £35 million for maintenance this year and next, which the Environment Agency has said will do the job of maintaining our defences.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that of the 1,400 schemes she has talked about, 1,119 are only partly funded and rely on 80% unsecured partnership funding and a 10% efficiency saving that nobody has yet identified? In fact, only 97 of those 1,400 schemes are both new and fully funded. She says that 300,000 households will have reduced flood risk, but this figure is the result of homes going from the category of “low risk” to that of “very low risk”, while the number of homes at “significant” and “high” risk of flooding will go up by 80,000 in the next six years. Will she also confirm that in order to get these figures to add up for the Treasury, she has had to value human life at zero?

Mr Speaker: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I always feel that I am on the receiving end of a learned academic treatise, but a question would on the whole be preferred.

Elizabeth Truss: In this Parliament, we have already raised £140 million in partnership funding, which is 10 times the amount raised by the previous Government. This means that we are able to go ahead with more flood schemes and protect more homes than they were able to do. As I have made clear, the Environment Agency carried out a detailed assessment showing that overall flood risk will be reduced by 5% as a result of this funding. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor outlined his plans to give tax relief on private contributions to flood defence schemes, thereby making it likely that even more private sector companies will want to invest in flood defences. We are making it happen.

Brewing Industry (Packaging Waste)

Andrew Griffiths: What recent discussions her Department has had with brewers on packaging waste.

Dan Rogerson: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), met the British Beer and Pub Association in March this year to discuss the producer responsibility regime for waste packaging. Officials have also met the BBPA as well as the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and individual brewing companies to discuss packaging waste.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Minister for being a long-standing supporter of the beer and pub industry. Will he join me in supporting the Sustain initiative by the BBPA, which is not only increasing compliance but reducing packaging costs to the brewing industry? Does he agree that this shows we have a listening Government, who listen to the industry about the glass recycling targets, which has saved the industry £15 million a year as a result?

Dan Rogerson: I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the steps the industry has taken and I thank him, too, for the work he does to support this important industry. The scheme he mentions has come from within the industry: it is new and not for profit, has an excellent compliance scheme and is a good example of how the industry can organise itself to recycle more and to bring down the cost of compliance.

Rivers (Cleanliness)

Christopher Pincher: What recent assessment she has made of progress on improving the cleanliness of rivers.

Dan Rogerson: We have made strong progress in cleaning up our rivers, which are now in far better health than they were 20 years ago. Pollution from sewerage works, for example, has gone down significantly, and phosphate pollution will fall by a further fifth and ammonia pollution by a further sixth by next year. Overall, this Government have improved over 15,000 km of rivers—and I am sure you will be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that this is equivalent to the length of the Amazon and Nile combined, but we know that more needs to be done.

Christopher Pincher: I am enlightened by my hon. Friend’s answer, but does he agree with me that farmers who have managed their land and watercourses for many years are well placed to know how best to preserve them, and that if their watercourses should become blocked, they should be allowed carefully to clear them?

Dan Rogerson: We wish to remove unnecessary burdens from farmers and landowners that might discourage them from undertaking their own watercourse maintenance. Seven new river maintenance pilots were launched in October, and these will test how we can ease consent requirements for watercourse de-silting, and improve partnership working, while ensuring that the environment is protected and, where possible, enhanced. The pilots
	form part of the catchment-based approach, which will ensure that discussions take place with all those involved in river maintenance, while achieving wider environmental outcomes through transparent decision making that involves and integrates environmental interests with others in these local steering groups for the pilots.

England Coastal Path

David Rutley: What recent assessment she has made of progress on the England coastal path.

Dan Rogerson: We are making good progress with coastal access. It has been implemented on three stretches of the coast in Cumbria, in Dorset, and in Durham, Hartlepool and Sunderland. A further stretch of the coast in Norfolk will be open tomorrow, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that additional funding will be made available to complete the coastal path around England by 2020.

David Rutley: I welcome the announcement that funds will be provided to ensure that the path is completed by 2020. As co-chair of the mountaineering all-party parliamentary group, the pinnacle of APPGs—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Thank you. As co-chair of the group, I pay tribute to the important and pioneering campaign of the Ramblers, supported by, among others, the British Mountaineering Council, which has demonstrated the strength of public support for this vital path. Does the Minister agree that the path will help to reduce physical inactivity, as well as encourage the local economies of coastal communities?

Dan Rogerson: I am tempted to say that my hon. Friend speaks from the moral high ground, given his involvement in making the case for the healthy enjoyment of our countryside. Walking is a great activity, improving health and well-being, and coastal access will bring real benefits, giving local economies a vital boost by encouraging tourism.

John Mann: What an opportunity, Mr Speaker! The coastline of England is a magnificent tourist attraction, with the potential to regenerate the economies of rural industries. Let us get on with it: let us provide access to the whole of the English coast, and tell the world about our glories.

Dan Rogerson: I think that that was a question, although I am not entirely sure. In any event, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the sentiment, with which I entirely agree.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was operating in the spirit of a poet, and we are obliged to him for that.

Flood Defences

Henry Bellingham: What plans she has to encourage communities to contribute towards flood defences; and if she will make a statement.

Elizabeth Truss: We are on course to generate up to £140 million of additional partnership funding during the current Parliament. Our success in that regard means that we can protect even more homes—an extra 300,000—by 2021, and deliver £30 billion of benefits to our economy.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my right hon. Friend for her announcement 10 days ago, which was welcomed in my constituency. I am particularly grateful for her announcement of grant in aid for the long-term funding of sea defences along the Wash. Will she assure me of the Department’s full support for the community interest company project which is being led by my constituent Michael McDonnell?

Elizabeth Truss: I was delighted to hold a flood defence forum with my hon. Friend earlier in the year, when we also discussed the undertaking of a dredging pilot by internal drainage boards for the Ouse Washes. I am very keen for DEFRA to work with him and his constituent to ensure that we leverage the maximum possible funds for the important scheme to which he has referred.

Food Poverty

Chi Onwurah: What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

George Eustice: As I said earlier, the recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty concluded that people turned to food aid for complex reasons. The Government believe that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them into work, and with that in mind we have created 1.7 million jobs since 2010. We are also helping the most vulnerable to have access to food by means of, for instance, free school meals and improvements in the welfare system.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister may speak of “complex reasons”, but every week my office and I deal with people who have lost their benefits because of sanctions or confusion over delays in the payment of disability living allowance. This weekend I met a woman who had £1.37 to get her through the next week. Will the Government acknowledge that their decisions and their aggressive sanctioning are driving hundreds of thousands of people to food banks?

George Eustice: In fact, the timeliness of benefit payments has improved: 90% of payments are now made on time, which is an improvement on the position under the last Government. As for sanctions, the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres are ensuring that hardship payments are available to those who need them because they have been sanctioned.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not a plain fact that pre-prepared food costs much more than food that is cooked at home? Will my hon. Friend join me in praising schools that teach children from both poor and wealthy families how to cook?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Our new school curriculum for primary schools includes learning to prepare basic dishes and understand more about food. If we can teach people to prepare their own food, they will find that it is often far cheaper than pre-packaged food.

Topical Questions

Andrew Jones: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: DEFRA’s priorities are leading the world in food and farming, protecting our country from floods and animal and plant diseases, improving the environment and championing the countryside and improving rural services. Bees and pollinators play a vital role in the health of our environment and economy. That is why on 4 November we published our national pollinator strategy. It sets out the first ever wild pollinator and farm wildlife package for farmers, commitments from major landowners, and how everyone, from schools to parks and gardeners, can do their bit to contribute.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On her recent visit to my constituency, she saw and tasted for herself the excellent food and drink products that come from the area, produced by many excellent local companies. What role do businesses like these have in boosting British exports?

Elizabeth Truss: I had a very interesting visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. Food and drink exports are now worth nearly £19 billion, and businesses like the one I visited play a key role in that growth. I enjoyed visiting Taylors of Harrogate, which now exports Yorkshire tea to China, and Bettys, with its confectionary brand, is part of our contribution to breaking the £1 billion mark in exports of confectionary around the world.

Maria Eagle: The Secretary of State has ministerial responsibility for food production and processing, so it is concerning that yesterday she transferred a question about campylobacter contamination in chicken, which had been on today’s Order Paper, to the Department of Health. The Food Standards Agency has said that 70% of chicken on sale in Britain, much of it produced here, is contaminated by campylobacter. That is higher than the salmonella infection rate in poultry in the 1980s. What is she doing to tackle this totally unacceptable state of affairs?

George Eustice: I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a project being run by the FSA and BOC to try to develop a treatment system of blast-chilling poultry to deal with this disease. Earlier this year the FSA ran an information campaign to raise awareness among the public of this problem, and as she is aware, the FSA has also recently published information about the incidence of campylobacter in poultry among a range of retailers.

Maria Eagle: The Minister sounds complacent. He has no plan to deal with this scandal, beyond transferring questions about it to other Departments. Food poisoning caused by campylobacter contamination in the poultry industry costs our economy and the NHS £900 million a year in days off work and treatment costs. It kills an estimated 100 people and makes 280,000 people ill every year. When will he stop being the mouthpiece of the food poisoners and start being the champion of consumers?

George Eustice: I simply say to the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, the FSA is the responsibility of the Department of Health. The FSA leads on food safety issues, including campylobacter. It is the FSA that has decided to publish this information, so it is right that the Department of Health should lead on this issue, but I totally reject the notion that I have been complacent: within the first week of coming into this job a year ago, I had our chief and deputy chief veterinary officers give me a briefing on the issue.

Jason McCartney: There are 11 microbreweries, and even the Holmfirth vineyard, in my Colne Valley constituency in West Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend and the Department continue to support the success of the UK brewing industry, especially the businesses in my constituency, which are exporting their ales across the world, including to Australia?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his work in promoting the brewing industry in Colne Valley. I know the Magic Rock brewery ales from his area are available as far afield as Australia, as he mentions, and there are other famous Yorkshire brands like the Ilkley brewery, which I visited recently, as well as the Black Sheep brewery, which are selling around the world. This is thanks to the GREAT Britain campaign and UK Trade & Investment, which are doing so much to promote our fantastic beer.

Grahame Morris: There is concern about recent reports that indicate that the Government intend to bring forward the badger cull to early next summer in order to cull badger cubs. If these reports are accurate, is it not further evidence that this Government have reached new levels of desperation? It is cruel and it is bad science. The mass culling of junior badger cubs now is not a substitute for a serious TB strategy.

Elizabeth Truss: It has always been for the cull companies to decide when to start operations. The reality is that we inherited the highest level of bovine TB in Europe because the Labour party did nothing when it was in government. We are dealing with this with a comprehensive strategy that involves cattle movement controls, vaccination in the edge areas and culling where the disease is rife. That approach has worked in Australia, where the disease has been eradicated, and it is working in Ireland and New Zealand. We are determined to continue with that approach.

Robert Jenrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for bravely and rightly extending the flood payments and reliefs that were given to the communities that were flooded at the start of this year
	and to all those, including in Nottinghamshire, that were flooded in 2013. As a good Yorkshire girl, she recognised the injustice that was being done to the midlands and the north and she put it right. Will she join me in thanking all the groups in my constituency, including the Southwell flood forum, and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that have campaigned on this issue over the course of this year?

Elizabeth Truss: I certainly thank my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I also thank him for the fantastic work he has done to promote this cause. It was right that we were able to bring forward those grants and I was delighted that, in the autumn statement, we were able to confirm £700,000 for flood defences in Southwell, which will benefit 235 houses.

Chi Onwurah: Mr Speaker, you will know that Newcastle is a thriving hub of life science, digital, creative and video gaming industries, but not everyone who works in the city lives there. People tell me that when they go home to rural Northumberland, they wish that this Government had delivered on Labour’s fully funded commitment to universal broadband for all by 2012. Does the Minister agree with them?

Dan Rogerson: I welcome what the hon. Lady says about the industries in her part of the world. I would say to her that broadband is being taken forward. It is increasingly passing more and more homes in rural areas like my constituency and other rural areas around the country. Labour left us a legacy of an aspiration to do this; we are actually delivering on it and making a difference. We have further to go, but this is making a huge difference to those rural communities.

Sheryll Murray: The Marine Management Organisation says that it cannot meet me to discuss the disposal site at Rame Head South because of a judicial review. Will the Minister support my call to withdraw the existing licence and apply for a shorter one so that a new site could be investigated, the River Tamar could be dredged and we could care for the marine environment?

George Eustice: I understand that lawyers representing both parties in this judicial review are in discussions. I think the hon. Lady will agree that we need to ensure that we can continue to dredge the Tamar, which is a vital to the important port of Devonport. Also, I have always made it clear to her that I am willing to have meetings with residents, with the dredging company and with her to see whether it would be possible to identify an alternative site for the longer term.

Kerry McCarthy: Around 10 million turkeys are slaughtered each year for the Christmas market. The vast majority are intensively reared and kept in sheds containing up to 25,000 turkeys, with no fresh air and very little light. They are fattened up so fast that they collapse under their own body weight. It is almost certainly too late to save this year’s turkeys, but what is the Minister doing to improve animal welfare standards in the future?

George Eustice: The hon. Lady should recognise that there are a number of free range turkey farms, and that these are growing in popularity as demand increases. I can tell her that we are in the process of reviewing all our animal welfare codes, and having discussions with the industry and with animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming. It is our intention to get the new codes in place as soon as possible.

Anne McIntosh: One of the side effects of hydraulic fracturing at depth is the huge amount of contaminated water that has to be disposed of. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take a close personal interest in the first fracking application, because at this stage Third Energy has had no detailed discussions with the relevant water company about how to dispose of the contaminated water safely?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Fracking is safe and has low environmental impact if it is done responsibly. The Environment Agency has been working hard to get the licensing process in place to make sure that groundwater is protected. I will certainly be keeping a close eye on this issue and working closely with the Environment Agency on it.

Jim Shannon: The landing obligation for fisheries is potentially a disaster for the Northern Ireland fishing industry, and it is to be introduced in January 2016. What discussions have taken place with the fisheries Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the effect the discard policy will have on the nephrops fisheries in the Irish sea?

George Eustice: I have regular meetings and discussions with representatives from the Northern Ireland industry, including earlier this week, when we discussed our approach on the total allowable catch—TAC—for nephrops for next week’s December Council meeting. The landing obligation contains many flexibilities: there is a de minimis; we can bank and borrow quota from one year to the next; and where there is high survivability we are able to put species back. There are sufficient flexibilities in the regulation to make this discard ban work, but there is detail we need to resolve, which is why we are issuing a consultation in the new year to begin that process.

David Nuttall: Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), across rural England there are many concerns about the safety of the exploitation of shale gas, so can the Secretary of State confirm that no site will be given the go-ahead without approval from the Health and Safety Executive as well as the Environment Agency? They must be satisfied that any site will comply with strict safety criteria.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the HSE, and of course the local planning process also has to be gone through. I commend to him the paper produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. They looked at these issues in detail and at experience
	from other countries, which shows that, provided the correct environmental regime is in place, fracking is safe to carry out and does have very limited impact on the environment.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

English Cathedrals (Maintenance)

Michael Fabricant: What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for maintenance of the fabric of English cathedrals that are older than 500 years.

Tony Baldry: The first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund has so far allocated £13 million to 41 cathedrals, both Anglican and Catholic, across England. The third and final round of this scheme closes on 17 January.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know that Lichfield cathedral is more than 800 years old—and its wiring is almost as old. If that wiring is not replaced, Lichfield cathedral will have to close because of insurance regulations. Will he make representations to ensure that the cathedral gets the money it urgently requires to replace its wiring and remain open?

Tony Baldry: I was grateful, as I am sure the whole House was, to the Chancellor for allocating £20 million for cathedral repair. I anticipate that Lichfield will apply in January in the third round of this scheme for about £1 million to, as my hon. Friend says, rewire and re-light the whole cathedral, and I hope that Lichfield is successful in that bid.

Barry Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when any restoration takes place he addresses the role of wildlife? He may have heard recently about the falcon living happily above York Minister, but will he ensure that bats are preserved in this country? They should not be persecuted; we do not want bats and badgers exterminated in our country. Will he make sure that bats are protected?

Tony Baldry: There is a question on this issue later on the Order Paper. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that churches and cathedrals are places of worship—they are not field barns—and it is not appropriate for bats to urinate and defecate in churches, where people are trying to worship and have broader community activities, such as toddlers groups and lunch clubs for pensioners? We have to find a way in which churches can exist as places of worship without being disrupted by bats.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that “Baldry on Bats” on BBC Parliament will be an unmissable fixture.
	Mr George Hollingbery is not here, so I call Andrew Stephenson.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Voting Fraud

Andrew Stephenson: What progress has been made by the Electoral Commission on its work in the 16 parts of the country it identified in January 2014 as vulnerable to voting fraud.

Fiona Bruce: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to reduce electoral fraud.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has targeted 17 areas where there is a high risk of allegations of electoral fraud to ensure that returning officers and police forces have developed appropriate responses to address specific local risks for the May 2015 elections. The Electoral Commission has also worked with the College of Policing to publish detailed guidance for police forces on preventing and detecting electoral fraud. The Electoral Commission has worked with political parties to agree a code of conduct for campaigners and is developing a simple guide for voters about how to protect their vote and how to report electoral fraud.

Andrew Stephenson: Sadly, in Pendle, allegations of postal vote fraud are nothing new, with the dubious actions of certain Labour councillors being reported to the national press as far back as 2002. Serious questions were asked earlier this year on the letters page of the local paper about the rigging of Labour’s own parliamentary selection. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me that fraudulent postal votes will not determine the outcome of the general election in Pendle?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the threat of electoral fraud in his area. He will be pleased to hear that the Electoral Commission has called a meeting tomorrow for representatives of the 17 high-risk areas, including Pendle, to review progress on anti-fraud measures and to ensure that the May elections are as secure and as transparent as possible. The message must go out in Pendle and elsewhere that electoral fraud in this country will not be tolerated.

Fiona Bruce: If a constituent becomes aware of, or suspicious, that electoral fraud is taking place during the election campaign, what should they do about it?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. The answer is that the constituent, if they become suspicious of electoral fraud, should report the matter to the local police force and, if possible, the local returning officer. Every police force should by now have specialist officers who are trained in investigating this thankfully rare but important crime, which highlights the fact that electoral crime in this country will not be tolerated.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Churches (Bat Infestation)

Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know that I love bats—

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has bats on the brain.

Andrew Robathan: Sorry, sleeping in the rafters.

Mr Speaker: We will hear more about that in a moment. It sounds racy and intoxicating.

Andrew Robathan: What recent estimate he has made of the costs to churches of damage caused by bat infestation.

Tony Baldry: “Baldry on Bats” part 2: the full financial cost is difficult to calculate, but the damage to local and nationally significant cultural heritage is substantial. Approximately 6,400 churches are infested with bats.

Andrew Robathan: Having come down from the eaves and woken up, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had any discussions with English Heritage, which, after spending a lot of money on restoring churches, then finds that environmental authorities do not allow the exclusion of bats from churches? It will not harm bats to be excluded from churches. They did not start there; they started in trees and other such places. We need to exclude them from churches because they are doing a huge amount of damage and wasting taxpayers’ money that has already been spent on restoring churches.

Tony Baldry: I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns. St Nicholas church in Stanford-on-Avon in his constituency is one of the worst affected churches in the country. We are carrying out research and work with Natural England, and we hope that that will offer solutions for managing bats in the worst affected churches in the country and, most significantly, financial help in carrying out those plans. Such work does help. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has in her constituency St Hilda’s church in Ellerburn, which has successfully excluded bats from the interior of the church, and has now allowed the congregation back in the building to worship. Adaptations are also being made to Natural England’s licensing system, which will make it easier for consultants to carry out licensed bat work in churches.

Kerry McCarthy: I raise this point with some trepidation as the right hon. Gentleman got very cross with me when I raised it in a Westminster Hall debate on the same topic, but does he not accept that the Bat Conservation Trust has been doing some good work with some churches in helping to enable bat populations to live side by side with congregations? In some instances there are ways of managing this without causing a problem. Does he support the trust’s work?

Tony Baldry: The Bat Conservation Trust is a worthy partner, but it and the hon. Lady must accept that churches and cathedrals are not field barns; they are places of worship.

Barry Sheerman: What about the Baldry conservation trust?

Mr Speaker: We are not talking about the Baldry conservation trust, Mr Sheerman.

Christopher Chope: Will the full might of the Church of England be deployed in support of the Bat Habitats Regulation Bill, which is due for a Second Reading on 16 January 2015? That Bill would protect churches and deregulate the system so that bats did not get a free ride inside our churches.

Tony Baldry: As I think EU Commissioners have acknowledged, no one expected the EU habitats directive to cover places of worship.

Anne McIntosh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his solicitous concern about the number of years that the congregation was excluded and bats seemed to be given a higher right of entry to the church than the congregation. We tried to do as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) proposed—allowing bats in the roof, with the congregation below—but it was simply incompatible.

Tony Baldry: I am glad that after all this time we have managed to solve the problem at St Hilda’s at Ellerburn. It demonstrates that with perseverance and working together with Natural England, it is possible to come up with a solution that enables congregations to worship but does not harm bats.

Dennis Skinner: When I opened the Christmas fair last Saturday in Wessington church, I had loads of conversations with everybody, including the vicar. Not once did they ever mention that there were bats around. It is just conceivable that the bats were not there because the beast of Bolsover was in the church.

Tony Baldry: “Baldry on Bats” part 3 has not contemplated the idea of getting the hon. Gentleman around to every church that is infested with bats to exorcise them, but it is certainly worth considering.

Mr Speaker: Indeed. Who knows? There might be a debate on the matter. I call Mr Oliver Colvile. Not here.

General Election Hustings

Martin Vickers: What guidance the Commissioners are providing to parishes wishing to hold hustings before the general election.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England intends to partner with other local churches to put on hustings for the 2015 general election and will adapt guidance published by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and other organisations for use in its parishes.

Martin Vickers: Churches Together was one of only two organisations that arranged meetings prior to the last election where all candidates appeared. It is vital that we do all we can to encourage such meetings. As well as guidance, can my right hon. Friend give any additional help and support to individual parishes or Churches Together to arrange such meetings?

Tony Baldry: I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that all guidance produced for parishes for hustings meetings at the general election will comply with both the Charity Commission regulations regarding political activity and those of the Electoral Commission. As some of us know from previous general elections, Churches Together is experienced in organising hustings meetings in constituencies across the country. Those have been widely welcomed because they enable questions to be put on issues that might not otherwise be raised during a general election campaign, and I very much hope that will happen as much as possible at the general election next year.

Church Repairs

David Nuttall: What support is available for churches in need of repairs.

Tony Baldry: In the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly extended the listed places of worship grant scheme, for which I am extremely grateful. This will be a one-off grant of £15 million to enable listed church buildings of any denomination to apply for assistance with repairs to roofs and rainwater guttering.

David Nuttall: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further details about the criteria for applying for a grant and what the deadline is? I understand that there is a fairly tight time scale in which churches must apply if they want to make use of the scheme.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. The time scale is quite tight. Any church that has problems with its roof or its guttering should apply for funding. There is a website, www.lpowroof.org.uk, which shows all the details. Grants are available from £10,000 to £100,000. Repairing roofs is often unglamorous but very necessary work and there are a number of churches that require repairs to their roof.
	As this is the last Church Commissioners questions before Christmas and the last question before Christmas, may I share with the House an observation? I saw yesterday in St Ethelburga’s church in the City, an old Saxon church that was bombed by the IRA and rebuilt, on the eastern window the prayer, “O pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.

George Young: Further to the reply that my right hon. Friend has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) about the rather challenging deadline for bids, 31 January is the date by which churches have to get in their bids and my right hon. Friend will understand that vicars have seasonal commitments during the next few weeks. Is there any flexibility in that deadline for those who cannot meet it?

Tony Baldry: If my right hon. Friend has a church in his diocese that wants to submit a bid, I am sure that the diocesan advisory committee and the diocesan office in the diocese of Winchester will make quite sure that it is submitted properly and fully by the deadline.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the answer given by my right hon. Friend. The Holy Trinity church in Twydall in my constituency is in urgent need of repair and would qualify. Rather than having to look this up on the internet, have all churches been written to as a matter of urgency with an explanation of the criteria and how to apply for this funding?

Tony Baldry: I have written to every right hon. and hon. colleague in the House explaining how they apply for these funds, and the churches and cathedrals division in Church House has written to every bishop, archdeacon and diocesan advisory committee. So there can be no excuse for anyone within the machinery of the Church of England not understanding that these grants have been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are there and ready to be taken up, and if any parish that has problems with a roof or guttering gets in touch with its diocesan office, it should be able to get a properly submitted bid in on time.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

William Hague: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 15 December—Motion relating to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014, followed by consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (day 2).
	Tuesday 16 December—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill.
	Wednesday 17 December—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be debates on Opposition motions including one entitled “The Immediate Abolition of the Bedroom Tax”.
	Thursday 18 December—Statement on the publication of the fourth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on the operation of the national planning policy framework, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 19 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 5 January 2015 will include:
	Monday 5 January—Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill [Lords].
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18 December will be:
	Thursday 18 December—General debate on business investment in outer-city estates, followed by a general debate on the future of Carnforth station.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and the business for the first day back in 2015. I also thank him for the debate that he has granted for Monday on the firefighters pension scheme.
	On Wednesday, we will once more stage a debate on the pernicious and cruel bedroom tax. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if the House votes again to scrap the tax, he will actually act and abolish it?
	This week, the Government achieved the dubious distinction of losing its 100th vote in the Lords. They were defeated for the second time on their plans to curtail judicial review, and four former Tory Cabinet Ministers voted against them. This was after the Justice Secretary had to admit that he did not understand his own Bill, and in an humiliating apology correct his assertion in this House that clause 64 maintained judicial discretion when it does not.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us whether his Government will now see sense and accept the Lords amendments? After losing yet another judicial review last week, should not the Justice Secretary now accept
	that instead of trying to abolish judicial challenge, he should just get on top of his brief and stop trying to implement unlawful policies?
	A week after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the mask has slipped and his baleful plan for Britain’s future has become clear. He has failed every test and broken every promise he made on the economy, including his promise to balance the books before the election next year. He hoped we would not notice the choice that he has made to cut public spending to 35% of gross domestic product, which would take us back to levels reminiscent of the 1930s before we had the NHS or a social safety net.
	In the week when we were reminded that 4 million people in our country are now at risk of going hungry, it seems that the Tory solution is to blame the victims and tell those who cannot afford to feed their families that they do not know how to cook. We all know that the real problem is low wages and in-work poverty. Instead of their ideological obsession with destroying 60 years of social progress, what we really need is a fair and balanced deficit reduction programme that combines common-sense savings with an effective growth strategy. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on these competing visions for the future of our country?
	The Tory Chief Whip has had yet another bad week. It seems that some of his ministerial colleagues took his declaration of a three-day week a little too literally. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was so amazed that he needed to be here on a Thursday that he very nearly missed his own debate on the Government’s flagship stamp duty policy. However, a generous offer from the Work and Pensions Secretary to lead the debate in his absence was enough to send him sprinting down Whitehall from the Treasury. While Government Back Benchers wasted time with points of order, he eventually arrived, flustered and visibly out of breath. What on earth were the Government Whips doing? Were they playing Candy Crush on their iPads? The Chief Whip is always bunking off; when he is here, he is causing trouble at the back of the class; and he never does his homework. I think the Education Secretary would be very happy to put him in detention.
	The autumn statement appears to have had a peculiar effect on the Liberal Democrats. The Business Secretary told the Cabinet that it was “excellent”, with “Lib Dem fingerprints all over it”, before getting others to brief the newspapers that he really thinks that the cuts are simply not achievable. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury happily signed it off as a member of the quad, but then he called it
	“a mix of unfunded tax promises, harsh spending plans and pandering to UKIP.”
	The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is proud of the autumn statement, but he was so desperate to distance himself from it that he fled 300 miles to Land’s End. We are all used to celebrities having “show-mances” to make the front page of Hello! magazine, but this must be the first time in history that two partners have attempted a “show-vorce”. They are leaking lurid details of their rows to the papers, and they have moved into separate rooms in No. 10 so that they can spin against each other. They have even resorted to “masosadism”—inflicting pain on each other while inflicting pain on themselves at the same time.
	The Liberal Democrats must think that we have all fallen off a Christmas tree. Their cynical choreography has now reached such ridiculous levels that I am told that they are forming a Cabinet within a Cabinet in order to shadow their own Government’s Cabinet, and I bet there are still no women in it. It is less like Candy Crush and more like parliamentary zombie apocalypse.

Kevin Brennan: Welcome back, Angela!

William Hague: Yes, we welcome back the shadow Leader of the House. We were entertained last week by her deputy, but mainly at his expense, so it is good for her party that she is back. She invented one or two new words in her question—[Interruption.] Well, to pick up on the Prime Minister’s invention a couple of weeks ago, we on the Government side know the definitions between those words: sadism is when the shadow Chancellor insists on giving us a speech; and masochism is when we ask him to read it out again.
	The hon. Lady noted the debate on the firefighters pension scheme, which we have of course found time for next Monday. She asked about the spare room subsidy, which in our view is a basic matter of fairness, as has been explained many times. That will be discussed in the debate next Wednesday. She asked about the Government’s 100th defeat in the House of Lords in the course of this Parliament, which certainly shows a certain independence in the upper House, but of course that does not mean that the Government agree with its conclusions. It is crucial that judicial review continues to hold public authorities to account for the right reasons. In the Government’s view, the reforms strike a fair balance between limiting the potential for abuse of judicial review and protecting its vital role as a check on public authorities. We are disappointed by the outcome of the votes in the Lords and will now consider our next steps before the Bill returns to this House.
	The hon. Lady attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for failing every test on the economy. Is not one of the tests reducing the huge deficit that was left behind by the previous Administration? Is not one of the tests reducing unemployment to a much lower level than we were left with? Is not one of the tests having 2 million apprentices in this country that we did not have before? Is not one of the tests keeping inflation under control? Should not one of the tests be having the fastest growing economy in the G7, as now confirmed by the OECD? I am not sure what the Opposition think the tests are if they think they have been failed. Those are the key tests of a successful economy, and they have come about only under this Government. She referred to poverty. The official figures show a reduction of 600,000 people living in relative poverty in the past four and a half years, including 100,000 in the past year. Only a continuation of our approach will succeed in continuing to reduce it.
	The hon. Lady aligned her questions with the speech that the Leader of the Opposition is meant to be giving today, for which we should be grateful. It is clear that he has now finally remembered the deficit but is unable to think of anything to do about it. We understand from the now published recollections of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), that the Leader of the Opposition does not get “much of a look-in” from the shadow Chancellor
	on economic policy. That is exactly the same kind of dysfunctional relationship that we saw in the previous Labour Government, and it ended up with Britain having its biggest budget deficit in peacetime history. If Labour Members have now finally remembered the deficit, I hope they will choose it as one of their subjects for next week’s Opposition day debate, because then we can ask them why, if they believe that the deficit should be lower, they have opposed the entire £83 billion of welfare savings in this Parliament. That would be a debate to look forward to.

George Young: Next week, will my right hon. Friend be publishing a Command Paper and making a statement to the House on English votes for English laws? Can he confirm that every party aspiring to government after the next election has addressed the English question? Will he promise that we will have a debate and an early vote on the options?

William Hague: I do intend to publish a Command Paper next week setting out options on, among other things, the question of English votes for English laws, and I will certainly seek to make a statement about that. The same three parties that contributed their policies to the Command Paper on Scotland were asked to contribute to this Command Paper. So far, there has been no sign of the official Opposition supplying any policies or ideas to put into it, and it will therefore reflect the views of the two parties in the coalition. I hope that we can have an early debate and, indeed, a vote on these issues in the new year.

Joan Ruddock: Earlier this week, the Austrian Government put on a conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and some Members of this House attended it. More importantly, 158 states were present, including the United Kingdom. Given that we are a major nuclear weapons state, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the outcomes of the conference and the humanitarian consequences of the possession of nuclear weapons?

William Hague: These are of course important issues in which the right hon. Lady has a long-standing interest. Members of this House called for the United Kingdom to attend that conference, including at business questions, and I am therefore sure that the House will be pleased to note that the United Kingdom did so. There has always been a good case, over the decades, to debate these issues. I cannot offer such a debate at the moment given the business that we face, but she may wish to make representations to the Backbench Business Committee.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on energy bills and the subsidy of low-carbon energy? The Committee on Climate change has said that households already pay an average of £45 a year to support low-carbon power, and that that will rise to £100 in 2020 and £175 in 2030. In such a debate, we could highlight the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who has campaigned lots on high energy bills and the cost of living crisis, was responsible for the high energy bills and the cost of living crisis in the first place, because he set these
	increased energy bills in train when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and introduced the Climate Change Act 2008.

William Hague: It is certainly true that energy bills rose sharply under the previous Government. This Government have taken action to ensure that people can buy their electricity on the lowest tariff and recently introduced policies that will bring about a reduction in energy bills. There will be questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change next Tuesday, so my hon. Friend will have an earlier opportunity even than a debate to raise the wider issues of renewable energy with Ministers.

David Winnick: Wednesday’s debate on the bedroom tax should be very interesting indeed. I remember when Tory MPs always referred to the poll tax as a community tax. Be that as it may, has the Leader of the House been given any indication of how the Liberal Democrats intend to vote next Wednesday? If they are so keen to separate themselves from the Tories, this is their opportunity to do so by voting against the bedroom tax.

William Hague: I am sure the Liberal Democrats are able to express their own views on how they will vote in any debate. I will point out again that in the Government’s view this is a basic issue of fairness. For someone living in private rented accommodation and in receipt of housing benefit, these rules applied under the whole of the previous Labour Government and we had a situation whereby neighbouring households could be treated unequally. Those points will, of course, be made in the debate.

Andrew Stephenson: A report last week showed that Yorkshire got a £102 million boost from hosting the Tour de France in May, and I am delighted to have been involved in the bid that will mean that a leg of the Tour of Britain cycle race will come to Pendle and Ribble Valley next September. Could we have a debate on cycling, which would cover everything from continuing to fund Bikeability in schools to supporting fantastic British companies in the industry such as Hope Technology in Barnoldswick and Carradice cycle bags in Nelson?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has some great businesses in this sector in his constituency and I have seen on visits to his constituency the great enterprise of his local business community. Cycling is phenomenally popular in Britain—I think we are now second only to Germany in the number of bikes sold each year in Europe. The Tour de France was certainly a great economic boost for Yorkshire. I wish my hon. Friend well with the work he is doing to make sure that further benefits come to Pendle. He is, of course, able to make the case for debates on such issues to the Backbench Business Committee.

Kelvin Hopkins: Britain is suffering from major problems with addiction: there has been another report this week about the problems of gambling machines and addictive gambling; there are reports today about addiction to prescription drugs; and we
	have serious problems with alcohol, illegal drugs and even food. Is it not time that the Government gave time for a substantial debate on all of those issues and how the Government are going to address our major problems with addiction?

William Hague: Those are very important issues—I absolutely acknowledge that and agree with the hon. Gentleman. Most of them have been debated in the House at one stage or another, but they remain very serious problems here and, of course, in many other nations as well. I cannot offer a debate in Government time, given that the time allocated for such debates is generally controlled by the Backbench Business Committee, but the hon. Gentleman has made his case and I am sure he will continue to do so.

Peter Bone: May I first thank the Leader of the House for announcing a debate on the firefighters pension scheme following calls for such a debate from Members on both sides of the House last week? May I also ask him to allay the outrageous slur by the shadow Leader of the House that, because of the autumn statement, Liberal Democrats are saying one thing here and another thing elsewhere? Could he ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week—if he can persuade him to come here—to confirm that that is an absolute slur, because Liberal Democrats have always said one thing here and another thing elsewhere? [Laughter.]

William Hague: We thought an end to the question similar to that was coming. At least the Liberal Democrats are not now saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place at the same time, which is perhaps an improvement on some past episodes. The Deputy Prime Minister gave very clear answers yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions—extremely clear, and actually extremely good answers—to all the questions asked by the Opposition. The answers included a clarification that the autumn statement was a statement for the whole coalition Government, with policies that we are pleased Liberal Democrats are also committed to.

Margaret Ritchie: Bearing in mind the debate next week on firefighters pensions, will the Leader of the House consider another item directly related to older people—the extension of the warm home discount scheme to Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is the only region in the UK that does not have such a scheme. In its fuel poverty statistics methodology, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has described fuel poverty as “a partially devolved matter”. May we have a debate on that partially devolved matter, and on extending the scheme to Northern Ireland?

William Hague: I think the hon. Lady has succeeded in raising the issue in the House without having a debate. I cannot offer any debates in addition to next week’s business, but questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take place next Thursday, and she will no doubt wish to pursue the issue with the Northern Ireland Office and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Executive.

Oliver Colvile: The Government said that they would review the decriminalisation of single dispensing errors by pharmacists.
	As my right hon. Friend knows, pharmacists can be sent to prison for such errors, but general practitioners do not have to face prosecution. The Government seem to be taking an age on this change, so may we have a statement or, for that matter, a debate to clarify when it will take place?

William Hague: We remain committed to removing the criminal sanction on inadvertent dispensing errors by pharmacists, but the issue is complex and it is vital to get it right. I am not sure that a debate is necessary at this stage, as there will in due course be a consultation on the proposals. I will inform the Ministers handling this matter of my hon. Friend’s concern that it should be done as quickly as possible.

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), next February the Government will host a meeting of the declared nuclear weapon states in London ahead of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, which unfortunately coincides with our general election. What plans do the Government have to make a statement to the House ahead of the P5 meeting in February, and will there be an opportunity to debate the British Government’s position ahead of the NPT review conference next May? The issues are obviously extremely important if we aspire to bringing about a nuclear weapons-free world.

William Hague: These are very important issues. The last NPT review conference in 2010 straddled the last general election, but that did not stop this country making an important and very positive contribution to it, and Members from all parties will want us to do so again. There will of course be several opportunities to question Foreign Office Ministers in the House before then, but I will certainly point out to them the interest shown in the House about having clarity on the Government’s approach to the forthcoming conference before the general election.

Andrew Jones: Please may we have a debate on apprenticeships? This week, we have passed the significant landmark of 2 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament. More than 2,000 of them have been in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency in the past two years alone. This week, there has also been an announcement about changes to the careers advice service to put a bit more emphasis on apprenticeships and vocational learning. If we had a debate, we could explore what more can be done to encourage people to consider apprenticeships as part of their future.

William Hague: This week the 2 millionth apprenticeship has indeed been reached, and such apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills that employers need to grow and compete. A further boost was provided, particularly for young apprentices, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and despite the efforts of Labour Members to deride them, such apprenticeships are real jobs with training. The locations and sectors where apprenticeships are available are determined by employers offering apprenticeships and recruiting apprentices, and there is
	a good case for a debate on the issue. I cannot offer one at the moment, but my hon. Friend may wish to make the case to the Backbench Business Committee.

Kerry McCarthy: Yesterday, Luton Town football club became the first league club to start paying everybody it employs, including subcontractors, the living wage. May we have a debate on why the really wealthy clubs—Luton is obviously not one of them—cannot also pay their staff the living wage?

William Hague: I cannot add to the debates currently before the House, but the hon. Lady has made her point and I hope that other football clubs will take note.

Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that the House is currently awaiting the Government’s formal response to the review by Sir John Jenkins on the Muslim Brotherhood. Will that review be made available to the public in full, and if not, why not, and will he agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the Government’s official response?

William Hague: That work was requested by the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary—that is me. It is a report to the Prime Minister—no longer to me since I have moved position—and no decision has been taken on its publication. I will update my hon. Friend on that report so that he is fully aware of the position.

Barry Sheerman: May I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on home schooling when the House returns after Christmas? For many people home schooling is a good way of educating their child, but for many others it is not. Has he seen the estimates that suggest we do not know where up to 100,000 children in our country are, what curriculum they are pursuing, or about their supervision, safety and security? In an age when we are ever more worried about child abuse and child protection, may we have an early debate, because that area has got out of hand?

William Hague: I can see the case for such a debate. As the hon. Gentleman said, we live in an age in which we are extremely concerned about child protection. An important conference is taking place on that this week, and the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have announced further initiatives to protect children from abuse. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I am sure he will make the case either for an Adjournment debate or for the Backbench Business Committee to table a motion on that issue.

Neil Parish: Recently I picked up a card in the restaurant for vegan month, and we have also had vegetarian week. The Leader of the House is a great believer in fair play, so given that excellent beef and lamb is produced on grass throughout the country, which helps to keep our green and pleasant land the way it is, could we have a red meat month so that we can eat red meat sustainably?

William Hague: Every month is red meat month as far as I am concerned, and I always think it does me a lot of good. My hon. Friend makes a good case. We have a wonderful industry in this country, including an excellent
	beef farming sector, and its success is important to agriculture and the country’s overall prosperity. I will always do my best to promote its success, but whether we can institute a red meat month will be a matter for wider discussion among the House authorities.

Kevin Brennan: The Leader of the House is standing down at the next election, so could we see more of his true self during business statements? When he and I were
	“young and easy under the apple boughs”
	many decades ago, he had a visceral dislike of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. If the Liberal Democrats cannot even be bothered to turn up to business questions, does he agree that they should receive the same treatment that they meted out to poor people who have a spare room in their home, and be evicted at the next general election?

William Hague: I am surrounded by the Deputy Leader of the House, who is a Liberal Democrat, and the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the deputy Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, who is also a Liberal Democrat, so I think it is a little unfair to say that Liberal Democrats do not turn up for business questions, although it cannot be said that a lot of Liberal Democrats have turned up to ask questions. When the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and I were students, we made common cause in ensuring that Liberals and the SDP were not very successful at Oxford university in the early 1980s, but circumstances change. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests, as has often been said.

Rehman Chishti: In July, my constituents, Eve Michell and Shannon Rudden from Rainham Mark grammar school, attended the Government’s YouthforChange event, which encourages young people to get more involved in the international movement for girls’ rights. May we have statement on what plans the Government have to build on that success?

William Hague: I cannot offer an immediate statement, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The Government will want to continue to support such initiatives, and to commend the good work taking place in so many parts of the world, to which he rightly draws attention.

Mike Kane: On Monday, I attended the launch of the first direct flight from Manchester airport to China. I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating all those involved in securing that, including Cathay Pacific. With the Davies commission due to report in a few months, and with Treasury civil servants scurrying around working out the staggering public subsidy that will be required if a third runway at Heathrow is the decision, will the Leader of the House, as a fellow northern MP, bring the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Transport to the House to explain to them that, pound for pound, it would be a better use of public money to spend it
	between the Mersey and the Humber estuary than on the public subsidy for Heathrow, which will make the northern powerhouse look like a drop in the ocean?

William Hague: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating everyone involved in ensuring that there is a direct service from Manchester to China. I hope it will be an extremely well used and successful route. We need airports in the north of England to be more successful, building on the success of Manchester, for the northern powerhouse concept to be successful. As he will know, the Government have announced a great deal of transport infrastructure investment in the north. I would differ from him on only one point: it is my belief that if regional airports are to be successful, it is important that there is additional airport capacity in the south-east of England, because without that, the regional airports lose their landing slots in key UK hubs. For the north to succeed, therefore, we also need the airports of the south-east to succeed. We need both.

Robert Jenrick: May we have a debate on what more the Government can do to reduce the illegal trade in wildlife—sensible actions that this country can take, although we do not necessarily need more regulation, which can have unintended consequences—following the conference that my right hon. Friend attended with the Duke of Cambridge earlier this week?

William Hague: There is a very good case for such a debate, and I hope my hon. Friend will make that case to the Backbench Business Committee. This country and companies based in this country can do a lot to prevent the smuggling of illegally obtained wildlife products. That trade is feeding corruption and even terrorism in other parts of the world, and is a moral outrage. I was happy on Monday to join His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in Washington. He has asked me to chair the transportation industry taskforce on the issue, and I have been very happy to take that on.

Albert Owen: Returning to the theme of saying one thing and doing another, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), may we have a debate in Government time on the impact of VAT increases on the UK economy? The Leader of the House will be aware that, before the election, the leader of the Conservative party categorically ruled out such increases, but he then introduced them. They are having a huge impact on small businesses in my community—my constituency—and particularly on the retail sector and restaurants. When a party of four go out for a meal, they have to take the Chancellor with them and pay his bill.

William Hague: The Chancellor had to take action on the vast deficit we were left by the previous Government. Yes, VAT was increased, but since then inflation has come down and even more businesses have been created. The figures released in the past three weeks show that there are 760,000 businesses operating in the country, the largest number we have ever known, and it is very important to bear that in mind. Businesses are succeeding and the deficit has come down.

Jason McCartney: The UK currently faces a shortage of HGV drivers. One of my constituents, Mark, is an HGV driver. He contacted me to tell me—in fact, he showed me photographs—about
	the disgusting facilities that he and his colleagues have to endure at motorway service stations during their regulated breaks. May we have a debate on whether the Government should intervene to improve these essential facilities, and on whether to fund driver training for hauliers to attract much-needed new drivers into the industry?

William Hague: The Government accept that there is an issue with the recruitment of HGV drivers, which is a significant concern to the industry. We welcome the steps that the industry has taken to recruit a new generation of hauliers. The Government are working with the industry to identify ways to improve the situation. On facilities, there is a Department for Transport circular requiring all motorway service areas and truck stops that are signed on, or from, a strategic road network to offer free toilets with hand washing facilities and free parking for two hours, so I hope there will be an improvement. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter.

Anne McIntosh: rose—

Mr Speaker: May I just ask the hon. Lady whether she has been here throughout?

Anne McIntosh: I slipped out to get a report, Mr Speaker, but I was here at the beginning.

Mr Speaker: We cannot have Members slipping out, but on this occasion we will accommodate the hon. Lady, who is an illustrious denizen of the House.

Anne McIntosh: The report is pertinent to my request, but I will take note and behave better in future, Mr Speaker.
	Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate the recent annual report from the Government chief scientific adviser, “Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it”, which concludes that, like thalidomide and asbestos, fracking could carry unforeseen risks? Such a profound allegation should be considered in Government time before any fracking applications are considered locally.

William Hague: These are important issues. Hon. Members from all parties have strong views for or against fracking, and on the policies necessary to carry it out correctly. There will be questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change next week, so that is the earliest opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter further in the House.

Barry Gardiner: The Leader of the House will have noted the recent report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on which the Government have a majority, which supported the Labour party’s policy for a national framework for low emission zones to combat air pollution. I know there is pressure on Government business and that the Leader of the House will be reluctant to make time for such a debate, but could he perhaps just announce from the Dispatch Box now that the Government also agree with the Labour party’s policy on air pollution?

William Hague: I think the Ministers responsible might get a little anxious if I made off-the-cuff announcements about changing Government policy on the spur of the moment, so I will resist the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to do so. It is open to him—as I have said to other hon. Members, particularly in relation to a Select Committee report—to pursue the case for a debate with the Backbench Business Committee. That is partly what Backbench Business and Westminster Hall debates are for, so I encourage him to pursue the matter in that way.

Andrew Turner: Next year, we will have almost reached the 100th anniversary of the murder of 1.5 million Armenians. May we have a debate on that issue?

William Hague: There is always a good case for a proper understanding of history—I am a great proponent of that—and that requires its discussion. We will be commemorating many events a century on over the next few years through the centennial anniversaries of the first world war, but I cannot offer a debate specifically on the subject that my hon. Friend raises, although I know it evokes strong feelings in this country and many other countries, so he might need to pursue the matter in other ways.

Points of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you give the House some guidance? Quite rightly, there are certain barriers and hurdles that you put up before granting an urgent question, but in recent weeks I have noticed the increasing number of statements that the Government are making. What hurdles do the Government have to clear? Time after time, we find we do not have time for Bills and that the Government do not announce Bills or meetings at important conferences; instead, they make these pie-in-the-sky, “this is what we’re going to do about roads, rail, health” statements. It is not a genuine use of the House’s time. They are manipulating the timetable to promote policies for the next general election. What advice can you give the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, because it is important to be clear about the constitutional position on these matters. Urgent questions are decided by the Speaker, and there are criteria that inform the decision, but the making of a statement by a Minister is a matter for the Minister; it is not within the purview of the Speaker. There is a courtesy that the Minister will tend to begin by saying, “With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on—”, but that, I emphasise, is a parliamentary courtesy. The decision to volunteer a statement is a decision for the Government. I think the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman’s complaint is that this is not a good use, in every case, of the House’s time. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but it is one reason why many people have favoured the creation of a House business committee, to which I know the Government have long been committed, but which is yet to materialise—but I am sure it is only a matter of time.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you provide some clarification regarding money resolutions for private Members’ Bills? In answer to questions I have put to the Leader of the House, he has informed the House that money resolutions have not been laid because the two parts of the coalition cannot agree on whether they should be approved. Surely, by tradition, a money resolution should automatically be laid if a private Member’s Bill gets a Second Reading, and then it is up to the House to approve it. Should not the money resolutions be laid automatically?

Mr Speaker: The norms regarding the laying of money resolutions for Bills that have secured a Second Reading do not currently apply. Yes, what the hon. Gentleman
	describes was the norm in the past, but that norm predated the coalition Government—
	[Interruption.] 
	Although his brow is furrowed, he knows the essence of this matter is that government has to be seamless. The Leader of the House has explained to him that unless there is Government agreement, a money resolution will not be tabled. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman’s concern relates to a particular Bill—

Peter Bone: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: Well, he might have a wider concern. However, there are people in the Government who would be happy to table a money resolution for the Bill he wants to see progress, but not for another Bill, and the Liberal Democrats take precisely the opposite position. The Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the thrust of what I have said is accurate.

Andrew George: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an interested party in these matters, but I hope he is not seeking to continue the debate. If he has a genuine point of order, we are all agog.

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the intro. I think there is a matter at stake here that should detain this House because the pre-eminence of Parliament is being challenged, in the sense that the Government are defying the will of Parliament by refusing to grant, or rather to table, money resolutions in respect of private Members’ Bills. What the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I are seeking to achieve through your advice and support, Mr Speaker, is to ensure that the will of this Parliament is respected, and that the Government can be challenged when they refuse, as they have chosen to refuse, to table a money resolution in support of private Members’ Bills that have the clear support of this Parliament.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I would be very sympathetic to somebody else being able to table the money resolution in compliance with, and following on from, the Second Reading approval by the House. However, such a right does not currently exist, and the Speaker cannot create it. I think the fairest thing I can say, with very considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and for the hon. Member for Wellingborough, is that Leader of the House is in place and has, appropriately enough, an air of gravitas about him. He has heard what has been said and he is weighing the matters in his scholarly cranium, and we may hear further and better particulars in due course—or not, as the case may be. We will leave it there for now.

Backbench Business

Fishing Industry

[Relevant documents: Twentieth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committee on 19 November 2014, HC 219-xix, Chapter 2]

Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the fishing industry.
	May I first express my delight in moving this motion and opening this debate, which is a great honour? I have participated in more fishing debates in 38 years than Britain has had quota cuts in its fishing catches, and I am afraid that it has always been a long-term rearguard action to prevent the decline of fishing. Such rearguard action has gone on ever since Prime Minister Ted Heath abandoned British fishing to the common fisheries policy. The fishing industry became, in the words of a Scottish Office Minister, “disposable”. Equal access to our common resource signalled a smaller and far less powerful British industry, and it inevitably precipitated endless haggling, with British Ministers fighting for our fishing.
	We have had these annual debates, in which we always voice the problems of our fishing industry in different areas and try to incite Ministers to go away and fight for fishing. Ministers have said, for example, that they were going to fight for Britain in the December European Council meeting at Brussels and come back proclaiming victory—yet fishing continues to decline. They have not proclaimed a victory as complete as Ted Heath’s under the Maastricht treaty, which claimed game, set and match to Britain. That is a facetious point about Europe as an introduction to what I really want to say.
	We have fought a rearguard action, which is now reaching its nadir. The forthcoming Council in December threatens a disaster for the industry because the conservation campaigners are proposing 40 quota cuts, with only 27 remaining stable or being increased. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has called this a “breathtaking galaxy of cuts”, which will decimate the industry, so we are at a turning-point because the cuts to quotas threaten the viability of the fishing industry, especially the English fishing industry. The Scottish industry is inevitably stronger because it is nearer the fishing grounds and is better protected by its Ministers and its Government than the English industry has been.
	There is a particular threat to the south-west, which will suffer the brunt of the cuts. If the cuts go ahead, there will not be enough quota to main a viable, profitable fishing industry throughout the year, and the industry will be forced to reconstruct itself by means of bankruptcy rather than decommissioning, or any other sensible policy. What has happened to the Bristol channel is a standing warning of the fate that will overtake the industry if the cuts proceed. Endless cuts have led to minute quotas, forcing the big vessels out and tying up the smaller ones. Many fishermen have gone bankrupt, and the only processing factory in the area has closed down. The cuts pose a threat that what has happened to the Bristol channel will happen all over the country.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the quota cuts continue year on year, the fishing industry in the south-west could be completely wiped out, like the long-distance fishermen for whom he has a history of fighting?

Austin Mitchell: I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. That is the danger that I want to avoid. I am inciting the Minister to fight to protect the industry in order to prevent that eventuality, because what happened to the Bristol channel must not be allowed to happen to the rest of the country.
	The prospects for the wider industry following the European Council meeting are gloomy indeed. The problems are compounded not just by cuts in the total allowable catches, but by the discard ban, which is to be introduced in two stages. That will be very messy and difficult. I believe that a discard ban is impossible unless every fishing vessel is equipped with closed-circuit television so that catches can be monitored. Alternatively, perhaps we could send unemployed Methodist Ministers to serve as observers on all the vessels—and Church of Scotland Ministers to serve on the Scottish vessels—to give us an honest account of what is going on.

Barry Sheerman: I have long been an admirer of my hon. Friend, who is passionate about this subject. He has always said that it is possible for this country to have a healthy, vibrant fishing industry which also protects marine conservation and the environment. Will he reassert that view?

Austin Mitchell: That is exactly right. That is what I want to achieve, as will emerge from my speech, whether it proves to be passionate, discursive or very boring.
	As I have said, the problems caused by the cuts will be compounded by the discard ban, which will be unenforceable. Moreover, if fish are to be expensively dumped in landfill rather than being discarded at sea, we shall need more ports at which to land them, and we do not have those ports, because they are being closed. In Lowestoft, for instance, everything has closed down. That, in turn, will be compounded by the landing requirements, which have not yet been specified because of the process of co-decision-making. All that is compounded further by the rush to marine conservation areas. Conservationists want 127 of them, which is just daft. It is excessive. Those conservation areas will create a patchwork quilt of different regulations and requirements in different parts of the North sea, with which the fishing industry will find it impossible to comply.
	Why are we faced with all this? We are faced with it because the common fisheries policy was not revised in the way in which it should have been in the recent 20-year revision. That revision provided an opportunity for power to be transferred to the regions and the regional advisory councils, and for the industry to control its own fishing, policing itself and maintaining its own stability. However, Brussels would not give up control. The result is that the policy is still controlled by diktat from the top and is enforced in the different areas. It is still decided on quotas and, if we have quotas, we are going to get discards, because those in mixed fisheries will catch fish that are not on their quota, and what is
	going to happen to them? The more they cut quotas, the greater the discards. We will face that problem as a result of this Council.
	The common fisheries policy has always been enforced through political imperative. In the past it was the political imperative of doling out paper fish to all the states in the EU. Each got a catch, and inevitably the result was overfishing, with fish created to please the politicians and to be given to national entities. The political imperative has now changed; it is now to propitiate the conservation lobby, which is playing far too big a part in policy decisions, as opposed to the interests and concerns of commercial fishing and having a viable fishing industry. The conservation lobby is playing a part because it is strong in the European Parliament, which is the home of playaway politics and funny politics of all kinds.
	Clearly, the conservation lobby has been very persuasive in the European Parliament. That is a sad change. I remember that 10 years ago the World Wide Fund for Nature and the British fishing industry co-operated in developing a plan for fishing that would lead to investment and, therefore, build towards a sustainable fleet and a sustainable catch, which is what we needed. We did not get the investment money from Government, however, so the conservation groups have moved on and are now demanding the close-down of the commercial industry, or restrictions on it that are so great that it will be impossible for it to carry on.
	The conservationists are painting a picture of our seas being fished out by rapacious overfishing. It takes no account of overfishing by other countries, however, because we cannot effectively control our own waters if they are subject to incursions by other fishing fleets, which ours are. That was the argument that we had about bass in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago. It was an argument about whether the leisure industry, the returns on which are compounded by including hotel bills and travel and all sorts of expenses, produces a bigger economic return than the commercial fishing of bass, and it left out the French rapacious overfishing of bass and took no account of the French decimation of the stock. Similarly, discussion of the shellfish—lobster and crab—fisheries off Yorkshire took no account of the smashing of the pots of Yorkshire fishermen by French trawlers, which has been taking place.
	We cannot have the kind of conservation policy that the conservationists want unless we have national enforcement in national waters, because the nation state has that interest in conservation. If we have a collective policy in which other people cheat and are given excessive quotas, which they maintain and defend, it is difficult to do what the conservationists want, which is to let the stocks build up.
	The aim has been to cut down on commercial fishing in order to build the stocks and support the small boat industry. I have in my hand one of the pamphlets, with a touching picture on the cover. It is entitled, “Championing coastal waters and communities”. Small boat fishing and commercial fishing are not necessarily at each other’s throats, however. Both are essential. Small boat fisheries do not go much more than 12 nautical miles out. They are not catching the kind of fish caught by commercial fisheries—high-volume, low-return fish like herring. They are not supplying the markets in the same
	way as the commercial fishermen are, so while it is necessary to support the small boat industry and fishing communities, it is also necessary to support and maintain commercial fishing.
	The conservationists are trying to create panic and a fear that we are going to decimate our waters and cut down on commercial fishing. They are being financed by American money: $50 million has been provided for campaigning by the Pew organisation, plus another grant from the Oak Foundation. That is why the campaign is so well-oiled, so vociferous and so effective. The British fishing industry does not have the resources to combat that kind of propaganda. The campaigners want to tie the industry down.
	The conservationists have an admirable ideal, which I share. We have to achieve sustainable fishing with a fleet that is matched to the fishing opportunities, but we will not achieve that through the brutal enforcement of targets using excessive haste. A term much used by Grimsby fishermen is “festina lente”—take it slowly. I say to the conservationists, let us do this in rational, reasonable, slow steps. Or, as the Prime Minister would say, “Calm down, dears!” Fishing has changed. It is no longer done by the kind of rapacious privateers that we used to see. Stocks are building up, and fishing mortality has halved in the north Atlantic since 2000. The amount of discards has also been halved through technical conservation measures, which is the most effective way of doing that. We are also seeing the biomass building up, very slowly in some cases but very fast in others. Look at North sea plaice: it is now abundant, and the biomass is at its highest level ever. Five years ago, North sea plaice was a threatened species. So there can be a rapid turnaround, and that turnaround is now going on, so let us take it as it comes. Let us balance the cuts with the development of the stocks.
	We need to have sustainable catches, but we also need a sustainable industry. That does not mean just the small boat industry; it involves the commercial fishing industry as well. Grimsby has moved from being the world’s premier fishing port. I used to boast about that when I was first elected, but it is not a consequence of my election that it has gone from that to having perhaps only 20 boats. However, some of those boats are doing a good commercial job. Some are catching flatfish, for example. Large, tied vessels are catching North sea plaice and maintaining continuity of supply to the market. We need to sustain both: the small boats and the large, commercial vessels.
	If these cuts go ahead as prophesied, the effect will be to decimate the small boat industry. It will be more serious than the conservationists envisage. We need profitable companies and profitable small boats. So why rush into the measures proposed for this coming year? Let us postpone the multiple sustainable yield target. Ministers have the latitude to postpone it to 2020, rather than introducing it in 2015. I urge them to postpone it, to maintain catches without cuts and to bring in the discard ban slowly and more partially—species by species—rather than promptly and all at once. We should let the build-up of stocks continue, and match the effort to that rather than to some target ordained in advance that is perhaps unreachable by 2015.
	I urge the Minister, as we always do on these occasions, to resist the scale of cuts that has been proposed. I urge him to proclaim the need for both a sustainable industry
	and for us to develop a system—unlike this dictatorial one of setting quotas from the top and then enforcing them on the British industry—that listens to fishing and to the regional advisory councils. They are the biggest advance, and a necessary one, in giving us regional control, regional targets and a regional management system. We need to involve the fishermen more in their research. We need to open up to the industry the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is far too secretive and far too scientific. The industry knows where the fish are and ICES does not necessarily have the same scale of knowledge. We need to stop trying to bully the fishing industry to fit into someone else’s plans, be it those for political union or for a conservation heaven achieved overnight.
	We need to help the fishing industry; let us not restructure it by bankruptcy. Fishing has an interest in having a sustainable catch and a sustainable industry, because that is the interest of future generations. If we destroy our interest—if we cut down fishing drastically now and stop the training, the family connections, the growth of communities dependent on fishing and the investment by companies that has gone on—we are not going to be able to restore the industry later. So let the industry get involved in the management of the stocks. Let us recognise that it has a future and work to preserve it. Let the industry develop in its own way, rather than imposing these excessive cuts on it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman brought his speech to an unexpectedly sudden close, but we are extremely grateful to him. Let us hear from Mrs Sheryll Murray.

Sheryll Murray: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is an absolute honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has represented fishermen across the UK in this House for, as he said, 38 years. At this time of year, we should remember the wives and families of those fishermen who have lost their lives, and I ask colleagues to join me in paying tribute to them today. I also wish to thank the maritime rescue services, particularly the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard, and to pay tribute to the work of the Fishermen’s Mission, Seafarers UK and other welfare services that provide for our fishermen. Indeed, I am throwing myself into the sea to raise money for the Fishermen’s Mission on 1 January, so please think of me.
	I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman and I am so glad that he opened today’s debate. I wish to thank both him and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for the way in which they have represented fishermen over so many years. Indeed, I have worked with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for many years, particularly while working on behalf of Save Britain’s Fish, and I still believe today that UK fishermen would be better off out of the disgraceful common fisheries policy—I have often referred to it as the completely foolish policy. I believe that his greatest achievement was to introduce the Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)
	Amendment Bill. I believe that had it been successful, the fishing industry would not have declined as it has over the past decade.
	I now wish to discuss the quota negotiations due to take place in a few days’ time. The European Commission proposals are not good news for fishermen in the south-west—area VII, as ICES referred to it—who will be hardest hit if maximum sustainable yield levels, which is the maximum catch that can be taken from a stock without threatening its future, are achieved by 2015. I urge the Minister to put the case to extend the end date to 2020. Fishermen’s organisations say that such a move would comply with the regulations but lessen the effect of the massive quota reductions, which, if implemented, would be disastrous for the south-west fleet.
	Let us look at some of the reductions. The sole quota in particular is to be cut by 60% in area VII d when it was already cut by 18% last year. The haddock quota in areas VII b to k, which affects fishermen in the Minister’s own constituency, is to be cut by 45% when it was cut by 32% last year. Those are just some examples of the cuts.
	Another anomaly is the data-limited method of assessment. When the science is not precise, an automatic reduction of 20% is proposed for some stocks. It is a ludicrous method, as the system has been closed since October and yet fishermen are seeing an abundance of skate and ray stock. The proposal to reduce the skate and ray quota by 20% is totally unacceptable, especially when the result is the closure of processing businesses and the loss of jobs.
	I am pleased that agreement has now been reached on the 12-mile limit—the past agreement is to remain in place until December 2022. Our territorial waters were agreed in the London convention of 1969 and, according to the spirit of the agreement, access to the 12-mile limit for other nationals with historical rights was always intended to be temporary. Forty years on, we need to see an end to other nations’ access, because those original vessels are probably no longer fishing or even in existence. The six and 12-mile limits should be exclusive for British fishermen, and that would allow our Minister to introduce measures for the conservation of bass without accusations of discriminating against them. Other member states must agree to implement any measures at European level. If they do not, UK fishermen would be penalised while other member states’ fishermen could continue to fish and land bass. Such measures would support both the commercial and the recreational sea angling sectors.
	On quota management by the Marine Management Organisation, 30 years ago, fishermen were consulted through area committees on the setting of UK quotas. Over the years, we have seen much of the management responsibility for quotas move to the producer organisations, with the MMO responsible for the under-10 metres and the non-sector vessels. I urge the Minister to demand a review of the MMO’s quota management system, because errors have been made recently, particularly in relation to skate and ray.

Oliver Colvile: One of the great mistakes of the previous Administration was to put the MMO not down in Plymouth but in the north-east, because we have an enormous amount to add to all of this.

Sheryll Murray: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour across the Tamar that such a move would have created a lot of employment not only in his constituency but in mine, and it would have made use of those wonderful maritime institutions for which Plymouth is famous.
	The Minister has a very hard task ahead of him in the forthcoming negotiations. I urge him to negotiate hard for UK fishermen, especially Cornish and south-west fishermen. If he feels that my 30 years of experience with the industry would be of any use, I would happily provide advice or even accompany him to Brussels. The least I can do for an industry that is so close to my heart is to offer it a future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I advise the House that there is no formal time limit, though an excellent example has just been set by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and if each Member confines himself or herself to no more than 10 minutes, everybody will be satisfied.

Frank Doran: I join the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and not only on his speech. This is the last fisheries debate for both of us, as we are standing down at the next election. He is way ahead of me in terms of years. We have run the fisheries group for a number of years, but he has had 38 years at the coalface. We have not always agreed, and some of his comments today emphasise some of the differences between us, but he has been a stalwart supporter of the fishing industry and of fishermen, and he should be congratulated on that.
	I took part in my very first fisheries debate in 1987, the year I was elected. It is interesting to contrast the debates that we used to have in those days with those that we have now. At the time, the main issues included quota and supplies, but there was a much more local aspect to the debate. The common fisheries policy was part of the debate, and illegal “black” fishing was a major issue until fairly recently. The Minister has a much easier time today than he would have had in those days, because it used to be a Government debate. That is a major change for us. We have to fight to get time for this debate.
	When the debate was held in Government time, the Minister opened. I cannot remember many Ministers who got away in less than three quarters of an hour, and many spoke for over an hour, because there were many more fishing communities at that time. Sadly, many communities have lost their fishing industry, but the Minister had to deal with biting questions, an example of which has just been provided by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, from every part of the country. He or—I am trying to remember whether we have ever had a female Fisheries Minister; I do not think we have—

Sheryll Murray: We have not, but we have had female Secretaries of State, including the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and one of her predecessors.

Frank Doran: The hon. Lady is right, but we have not had a dedicated female Fisheries Minister. I am not sure if that is a job for a woman, although the hon. Lady might reach that—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That was not a sexist remark; I know the fishing industry very well.
	Things have moved on and today we will be discussing more or less the same things, but in different language. We will discuss the cod recovery plan, the maximum sustainable yield, discards, and of course quotas, scientific advice and the Fisheries Council, which meets later this month. Two issues that we certainly did not discuss in the 1980s was the power struggle between the Commission and the Parliament and the science, particularly the collection of data or failure to collect data. The hon. Lady referred to one example of that.
	The structure of the debates in those days was different. As I said, they were introduced by the Minister. Another regular feature which I, for one, miss was the presence of the former Prime Minister, Ted Heath, at almost every debate that I ever attended. It might be thought that a former Prime Minister might have something better to do on a Thursday afternoon, but he was there for virtually all the debates that I was involved in. Of course, he had a reason. We heard something about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. The accusation that Ted Heath had sold out the fishing industry when he took the UK into the then Common Market was made regularly, often from the Labour Benches—my hon. Friend was one of those who did so—and in the later Thatcher years from his own side. It was fascinating to see him doggedly defend himself and his own reputation, and I have to say that I admired him for the way he did so. He came out of these battles often looking much stronger.
	I must also confess to a soft spot for Ted Heath. I remember as a very young MP being in the Lobby when everyone seemed to be voting on the same side, apart from two or three in the other Lobby, and I found myself crushed right up against him. I made the usual kind of comment of a naive newcomer to this place, saying, “In all the years I marched and protested against your Government, I never thought I would be standing side by side with you in the Lobby.” His response was, “Young man, this will happen twice in every Parliament, on pay and hanging.” I do not think many Prime Ministers or former Prime Ministers would say something like that nowadays. It endeared him to me, I have to say.
	We have very few opportunities to debate the fishing industry and, because the focus of such a debate at this time is usually the December Council meeting, we do not spend much time considering other issues, such as safety, which I am particularly concerned about. I have raised the matter from time to time over the years along with other Members, but we have never really had a debate when we could focus on it properly. As this is my last contribution to a fisheries debate, and as I have a particular interest in safety in other areas, particularly in the North sea and the oil and gas industry, I would like to say a few words.
	The fishing industry has the reputation of being the most dangerous industry in the UK. In 2008, the marine accident investigation branch published an analysis of UK fishing vessel safety between 1992 and 2006. In that period, there were 256 deaths, which is a staggering number in any industry. The report suggested that there
	were signs of improvement towards the end of that period, but that was also at a time when the number of vessels and those employed were declining rapidly. There were fewer fatalities, but the proportion of deaths, given the number employed in the industry, stayed roughly the same.
	I have been going through the records, and since that report was published there have been a further 59 deaths. Last year, there seemed to be a significant improvement when only four deaths were recorded. I have not seen the official figures for 2014, but I have been able to trace at least 10 deaths in the fishing industry this year. They include five deaths on one vessel, the Ocean Way, earlier this year. In addition to the deaths, there have been a significant number of reportable injuries, many of them serious.
	The marine accident investigation branch produced a thorough analysis of the situation, and the more one reads, the clearer it becomes that many of the deaths were avoidable. On the causes of death, for example, significant numbers of fishermen have fallen overboard. There is a generational culture in the industry where workers have refused to wear safety jackets, or other safety equipment, such as harnesses, even when they are on offer.
	On most larger vessels, there is heavy machinery and gear on board. Many injuries sustained by fishermen are caused by accidents with this equipment, and given the size of some of the equipment, these are serious accidents. Safety could be improved in many other areas. For example, there are often fires on board ship, alcohol is an issue in a number of deaths, and the condition of some vessels is not good, mainly because of age and deterioration. That raises the question of whether surveys adequately identify serious deficiencies. In one case this year, two deaths were caused by carbon monoxide poisoning because of failure properly to maintain and inspect a heater on the vessel.
	The leaders of the industry are now well aware of the need to improve safety. For example, I am pleased that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has introduced a scheme that offers licence holders in Scotland free personal flotation devices. With the jackets, there is also an opportunity for a free instruction session. The evidence is that more fishermen will take the opportunity to have safety jackets, and that is an important step in improving the industry, but the condition of some vessels and proper attention to risk assessment and mitigation remains an issue.
	Finally, I want to thank the industry organisations that I have been involved with over the years, particularly the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—Bob Allan, Hamish Morrison and Bertie Armstrong were all chief executives during my time in Parliament—and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, where Barry Dees does sterling work for the English and Welsh side of the industry. Barry has excellent credentials, having been educated in Aberdeen, so I am particularly grateful to him. In recent years fish processing has taken over from catching in my constituency—very few of our registered vessels fish out of Aberdeen these days—so the processing industry has been important for me. The Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association, the industry body for the processing side, was run for many years by Robert Milne, although he has now retired and the organisation exists in a different form. I thank them all
	for their sterling work, particularly those who are in post now, because they have had to make that generational change, which I am sure will be discussed more later. They are key to the changes that the industry needs to make.

Peter Aldous: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and my friends the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for helping to secure it. I also pay tribute to my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has just spoken in his final annual fisheries debate. He has been a steadfast supporter of the industry in this place for almost four decades, and I wish him all the best as he leaves not for pastures new, but for fresh waters.
	As we consider the future of the industry, my views are mixed. On the positive side, from the beginning of this year the new common fisheries policy is in place, which provides an opportunity for the industry and those who work in it to have a better future. Special thanks are due to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who worked so hard to secure that deal. However, there is a great deal of work to do to secure that better future, both for the industry nationally and locally in Lowestoft in my constituency.
	There are numerous hurdles to overcome. Achieving maximum sustainable yields by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest, will not be easy. Neither will the elimination of discards, for which it is vital that the Government work very closely with the industry to ensure a smooth transition. Improved nets and gearing, good use of the best science, such as that provided by CEFAS in my constituency, and such initiatives as “Fishing for the Markets” will be vital, but it will not be straightforward.
	The forthcoming meeting of the Fisheries Council on 15 and 16 December presents the Minister with a real challenge. Some of the proposed total allowable catches, if implemented, will place some fleets at real risk of being unable to survive, and the current parlous state of bass stocks must be addressed urgently. I also urge the Minister to take steps to stop electric fishing by Dutch trawlers inside North sea special areas of conservation, particularly the Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton SAC and the north Norfolk SAC. That activity is potentially in breach of article 6 of the habitats directive in an area where the UK has environmental obligations.
	The issue that I really want to home in on this morning is the reallocation of quota. The fleet in Lowestoft today is a pale shadow of what it used to be. It is an inshore fleet of under-10 metre boats. Their fishermen, like so many of their colleagues around the coast, get a raw deal. Altogether they comprise 77% of the UK fleet and employ over 65% of its total work force, they currently receive only 4% of the total quota available in the UK. Unless that problem is addressed, they will continue to dwindle, and that will be a real tragedy for so many communities.
	What is good for the under-10s is largely good for the ports in which they are based. They deliver significant economic, environmental and cultural benefits for their communities, many of which are among the most deprived
	in the country. The income they generate stays largely in their communities and permeates down a supply chain that has been built up over many decades but has sadly been much eroded in recent years. That is very much the case in Lowestoft, where it is now a small industry, although the infrastructure is still there and, with the right policy framework, it could deliver a lot more for the area.
	The reallocation of quota is not an easy task. Fishing communities around the UK have their own unique special interests which they rightly guard jealously and fight for vigorously. In some respects, the Government could not be blamed for taking one look at the problem, placing it in the “too difficult” category, and moving on to the next challenge. This would be completely wrong and a dereliction of duty. It is vitally important that they, and all of us, face up to this problem. Article 17 of the new common fisheries policy sets out the criteria that member states should follow in allocating fishing opportunity. If the Government pursue that course and take full account of economic, social and environmental considerations for local communities, many of the problems faced by the inshore fleet can be addressed.
	At present, under-10 metre boats fishing along the Suffolk coast receive what one fisherman described to me as a “miserable share of catch quotas”. The under-10 metre fleet is allocated a very small percentage of the TAC decided at European level, which is then augmented by swaps organised by the Marine Management Organisation from the producer organisations. Without these swaps, the under-10 metre pool would not exist. The MMO allocates catch limits to each vessel on a month-by-month basis. Individual skippers will be unaware of what their respective catch limits are until the envelope drops on their doormat at the beginning of each month. In practice, vessels can often end up with high catch levels for one species when it is not available and low levels for others when they are abundant. Reallocations of quota are neither predictable nor permanent, and they invariably take place towards the end of the season. This month-to-month, hand-to-mouth approach is not conducive to building a sustainable business.

Geoffrey Cox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the MMO is maintaining its function in monitoring the data in a timely and accurate way, or even competently?

Peter Aldous: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. I would say that there is certainly room for improvement. The way in which we collect the data needs to be addressed, and I will come to that in a moment.
	The work of fishermen still fishing out of Lowestoft in the inshore fleet should be contrasted with that of the seven affiliated vessels of the Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation, which are now controlled by fishing interests based in the Netherlands and in Aberdeen. These large vessels hold fixed quota allocations totalling 79,097 units, but their contribution to the local economy is limited. When they were based in Lowestoft, they helped to sustain the smaller boats. Their departure has partly contributed to the collapse of the port as the capital of fishing in the southern North sea, and has exacerbated
	still further the decline of the inshore fleet. Across the UK, Dutch-controlled vessels fishing British quota boast a total annual turnover of £48 million, yet only 1% of the fish they catch is landed in the UK.
	Article 17 provides the cornerstone for a root and branch reform to address these inequities and to ensure that economic, social and environmental benefits accrue to local communities. The judgment in the High Court in July 2013 in the case that some producer organisations brought against the Secretary of State for carrying out a very modest redistribution of unused quota—the case was dismissed—provides helpful guidance as to how we can move forward. Mr Justice Cranston was sympathetic to the view that fishing quotas and the fixed quota allocation system should always be considered against the backdrop, and based on the principle, that fish are a public resource. This dates back to Magna Carta. He also expressed the opinion that the producer organisations and their members have no proprietary interest in the fishing stock itself and that fixed quota allocations give no right to any specific amount of fishing stock in advance of the annual ministerial decisions on quota that will take place later this month.
	There is a need for more information and a better understanding of what is happening in the industry. The fixed quota allocation register first published last December is a welcome step forward, but more information is required on how much quota is held by non-working fisherman, and on quota transactions. The current trading system is complex and opaque. This information will show who benefits from the nation’s fish resources and whether they are providing maximum economic and social benefit to their local communities. This is the first necessary step to the introduction of a new, fairer quota allocation system.
	There is also a need to gain a full understanding of the under 10-metre fleet as to what percentage of those licence holders in receipt of monthly catch limits are active and how many may have made no or minimal landings in the past six to 12 months, and if not, why not.

Sheryll Murray: On the 10-metre quota, does my hon. Friend agree that the total lack of action and recording over a number of years by the Labour party allowed the sector to expand beyond what the available quota could allow it to keep it stay viable?

Peter Aldous: Personally I would not want to be partisan, but mistakes were made during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
	There is a need to establish how much of the under 10-metre fleet quota is gifted by the producer organisations and what the effect would be if those so-called gifts were withheld. It is wrong that one sector of the industry is so dependent on another for its very existence. With that information to hand, the Government could put a fairer system in place whereby the inshore fleet has proper representation on advisory councils; skippers of inshore boats obtain an increase in their monthly catch limits and are no longer beholden to the POs or dependent on hand-outs for their very existence; and quota is held by active fishermen who bring real benefit to their local communities, not by foreign vessels that turn out once a year or by inactive fishermen—slipper skippers—who hold quota as an investment and a trading commodity.
	Conservative Members are committed to a referendum in 2017 on the UK’s future membership of the EU and a renegotiation of the terms of our membership beforehand. In those negotiations, the reclaiming of our territorial waters in the six to 12 nautical mile area should be a priority demand. The current system is unworkable and unfair, and that reclamation would allow the Government to put in place measures that properly protect fish stocks and the marine environment and give priority access to local fishermen who depend on those waters for their survival.
	Much has been achieved in the past four and a half years in putting in place policies that will enable the industry to move forward and have a better future. However, the actual delivery is yet to come. It is complicated and a real challenge, but we need to get on with it, as time is very much of the essence. We are very much at the 59th minute of the 23rd hour.
	In years gone by in Lowestoft, it was possible to cross the water from one side of the Hamilton dock to the other from boat to boat. Today the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. However, if we put in place the right system of management, fishing will be able to play an important role in the future not only of Lowestoft, but of many other communities all around these four nations.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I first congratulate all four of the Members who have spoken so far, whose wisdom and knowledge I cannot equal? I agree with almost everything that has been said. I do not represent a fishing area—Luton is about as far as it is possible to get from the oceans around our coasts—but I am nevertheless concerned about the marine ecosystem. I want to be able to continue to consume fish, and I am also concerned about the British fishing industry and the fishermen who work in it. I have spoken in probably most of the debates on fishing since I entered this House some 18 years ago. I am also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, where I regularly speak up for fishing interests, sometimes to the amusement of my colleagues because Luton does not have its own fishing fleet.
	The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the common fisheries policy and what needs to be done for the future. I have said, and I say again, that I really believe that we must seek the abolition of the common fisheries policy for the long-term sustainability of fishing around our coasts, and for fishing stocks and the ecosystem. We will not solve all the problems until the common fisheries policy is got rid of, and until not just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits but the 50% limit and 200-mile limits are re-established. The only way to protect fishing in our seas is to return to those historical fishing limits, with countries maintaining and controlling their own fishing waters—way out to sea—around their coasts, and with every vessel being monitored and every catch landed in each country being measured. The only time that foreign vessels should be able to enter and fish in such areas is when they are under licence, on a vessel-by-vessel basis.

Oliver Colvile: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that inspectors in Spain live miles away from the fishing ports, but that those in my constituency in Plymouth are on fishermen’s backs every five seconds?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we monitor our fishermen very strictly, but other countries do not. Well, if they do not monitor their fishermen, let us exclude them from British waters until such time as they are properly monitored.

Robert Smith: The only thing I remember from a briefing by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation before a previous debate on fishing is that one of its spokesmen pointed out, in relation to conserving the herring stock so that there was a long-term future for the industry, “You do need to manage the North sea as a whole, because the herring do not recognise national boundaries.”

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. The point has often been made in such debates that fish have a habit of swimming between different areas of the sea. Nevertheless, Norway has not been a member of the European Union or of the common fisheries policy, but it has managed the stocks around its coast. Even though fish swim, there are greater concentrations of them where they are properly protected and managed in national waters. My own view is that when countries are responsible for managing their own waters, they seek to make sure that their fish stocks are sustained, but if they can just fish willy-nilly in other countries’ seas, they do not have that sense of responsibility and will not husband fish stocks even around their own coast.

Anne McGuire: Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that Norway has to enter into negotiations with the EU? As he says, fish do not swim under water with little flags saying that they belong to a certain part of the North sea or any other sea, so Norway’s situation is not quite as clear-cut as he suggests.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. That has been pointed out to me before when I have made the same argument, and it is true that Norway has an arrangement with the European Union. Nevertheless, if countries maintain their fish stocks—especially with the 50% limit, rather than just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits—and husband and manage them properly around national coasts, they get a concentration of fish stocks in those areas. I must say that if I were a fish and more likely to be caught in one area than in another, I would swim to the area where I was less likely to be caught, but that is just an aside.
	The only way to guarantee that countries are responsible when it comes to fishing is to ensure that they manage their own waters and can restrain other countries from fishing in them. That is absolutely basic. As I say, I have made this point on many occasions. I am not an enthusiast for the European Union in general, but if there is one area of the EU that is dafter than any other it is the common fisheries policy.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that should be one of the areas that the Prime Minister renegotiates back into the control of the UK when he carries out the negotiations in Europe?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady, who speaks so well on these matters, has made exactly the point I was about to make. For me, when the Prime Minister—it may be a Labour one—comes back with a new deal, the
	first thing I will want to see is the abolition of the common fisheries policy. If that is not in the deal, I have to say that I will not vote for the deal because it is so absolutely fundamental. One way to achieve that is to speak in this Chamber, as I do, and I hope that people in the European Union—in the bureaucracy in Brussels—are listening. If they are, they will know that if we get more exercised about these matters over time, we will in the end tell the European Union, if we are not agreed, that we are seeking to withdraw from the CFP unilaterally. I say that here as a warning for the longer term. I am sure that many people would agree with us on these matters.
	I think I have made my point. I am not an expert in the sense that my hon. Friends are experts—they have made some very important and more detailed points about what is now happening—but, in the longer term, I believe that the common fisheries policy must be ended and that countries must be made responsible for their own fishing waters, with every vessel monitored and licensed. If foreign fishing vessels want to fish in our waters or our vessels want to fish in those of other countries, they must be individually licensed vessel by vessel, and both what they are fishing and where they land their stocks must be monitored.

Geoffrey Cox: It has been a great privilege to listen to the speeches of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I cannot possibly emulate the extraordinary accumulated knowledge of the previous speakers.
	On 12 October, as I sat in my office in this place, a bomb was dropped on the northern Devon fishery. The Marine Management Organisation announced that the entire fishery would have to cease fishing for ray. Ray accounts for 60% of the landings in the northern Devon fishery. The fishery supports about 100 fishermen and their boats, and 650 fish processors. The industry is worth about £100 million per year. Local authorities together with local enterprise organisations clubbed together over several years and, some years ago, invested more than £2 million in a new fishing dock and quay so that fish processing could take place in Appledore. But at one stroke of the pen, the livelihoods of those people were wiped out.
	Last weekend, Mr Tony Rutherford, the boss of the Bideford Fisheries, came to see me. He is always a cheerful chap, as northern Devon fishermen seem to be, and on this occasion he was looking for a silver lining. It is hard to find one, however, when someone wakes up one morning to the sound of a letter dropping through their letterbox or of an e-mail arriving on their terminal saying that they no longer have a business.
	That situation cannot continue. I was shocked. I am a lawyer and I have no sea in my veins—I get seasick in the bath—but the truth is that, when I started to look at the reasons why this extraordinary situation had arisen, I was shocked. For example, I found out that the MMO had traded away more than 100 tonnes of ray earlier
	this year. Just a few months later, three months before the end of the season, it told my fishermen and the northern Devon fishery that they could not fish for ray.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the MMO seems to lack the expertise for quota management that it used to have? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to ensure that adequate quota management measures are put in place for under-10 metre and non-sector vessels?

Geoffrey Cox: Of course I join my hon. Friend in doing so. I was about to say that; she has stolen my thunder.

Sheryll Murray: Sorry.

Geoffrey Cox: Not at all. My hon. Friend has every right—probably a greater right than me—to make such a point, given her experience.
	As I started to look into this question, simply applying such intellect and abilities as I have, I could not believe the absurdity of the system we are operating. I was contacted by several marine experts from Plymouth and the south-west who had worked with the MMO. They did not want to be named—that is perfectly understandable—but they told me their experiences of looking at the data. Frankly, if it had been done by an accountant, the accounts would not be signed off. The quality of the information, the timeliness, or lack of it, of the data processing—none of those things have been done adequately or robustly enough to make any proper statistical judgments about what is swimming in the seas or what quota has been exhausted. We are doing no more than informed guessing, and on the strength of that we are playing with the lives and livelihoods of decent men and women up and down the country.
	Northern Devon fishery is a fine fishery that has pioneered conservation for many years. The island of Lundy, as many hon. Members will know, lies in my constituency and within the fishery. For many years the fishermen have agreed to no-take zones, and to allow the area to lie fallow for certain periods of the year. Around the country and the world that fishery has been praised as highly responsible and one that—if any deserve the name—warrants the description “sustainable fishery”.
	Ray is abundant in the northern Devon fishery and the Bristol channel. When the stroke of the pen came down, the Cornish fisheries association still had 100 tonnes of its quota left uncaught. How can that be right? How can guessing about over-fishing in one area of England mean that fishermen in the northern Devon fishery—where ray is abundant and makes up 60% of the take, and where people have worked night and day to ensure its sustainability—should find themselves with nothing to catch and literally nothing to put on the table the following week for their families? It is criminal!
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, we sometimes sit here and say, “It’s too difficult” and move on. However, occasions such as this are opportunities for Members of the House at least to put on record our forlorn and probably vain protest against the bureaucratic juggernaut that seems to be for ever steamrolling over common sense in its absurd and surreal way. If I sound indignant, it is because I have had to see so many fishermen in recent weeks, and I feel profoundly indignant on their behalf. They have no
	quota for sole or spurdog; they can catch a tiny amount of plaice, and their cod quota could be caught in a single day. How are they supposed to survive?
	I believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, that time has come—I am addressing the Minister directly—to examine and review whether the MMO is fit for purpose and how its data processing is conducted. Has the Minister been to its offices and looked at its techniques and methods? Will he get a grip on that organisation, which has lost the trust of the fishing industry from top to bottom? If the information I have received from well-placed and expert sources is correct, something is gravely wrong with the system of examination, data processing and monitoring. I hear stories of data being processed weeks if not months late, and of inadequate or inefficient data processing. Those stories reach the fishermen I represent. If their livelihoods are to be in the hands of those people—a few months ago around 100 tonnes of ray were traded away and now fishermen have been told they cannot catch any more—the Government must be sure on their behalf that the MMO is doing its job properly.
	Speaking directly to the Minister, for whom I have great fondness and regard, it is time for us to get a grip on the MMO and go in there, find out what it is doing, and insist on seeing exactly how it is processing the data. We must put experts in there to see whether the MMO will bear up to scrutiny as it should. If we do not do that, the continuing spiralling loss of confidence among the fishermen we represent will continue, and it will be fully justified.

Alan Campbell: It is, as ever, a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I commend the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), and thank them for their work throughout their years in this House on behalf of the fishing industry. As they have acknowledged, this will be their last fisheries debate, although the rest of us are hoping that that will not be the case for us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said, I look forward to this issue being discussed in Government time and not at the behest or whim of the Backbench Business Committee. It is too important a subject not to have a place in Government time if the Government believe the fishing industry to be important.
	I want to touch on three things: first, my local fishing community; secondly, matters relating to North Shields fishing port; and thirdly I will mention some concerns that fishermen have raised with me. My local fishing community does not need to be reminded of how dangerous an occupation fishing can be. In North Shields this year we commemorated the 40th anniversary of the sinking of fishing vessel Gaul, which involved great loss of life. On 8 February 1974 the Gaul sank with the loss of 36 crew, including six from the North Shields area. It had previously sailed out of the Tyne as the Ranger Castor, and earlier this year a plaque was placed on the site where it berthed, bearing the names of those who lost their lives: John O’Brien, James Wales, James Woodhouse, Neil Petersen, James Mclellan and Ronald Bowles. I pay respect to them, and also to their families who over the years have persevered in their quest to find out what happened on that tragic day.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North reminded us, last month the Ocean Way, a vessel registered at Fraserburgh, sailed out of the Tyne and was lost some 100 miles off the Farne Islands, with the loss of a local skipper and two Filipino crew. We owe a great deal to the rescue services that work on our behalf, and I commend the Fishermen’s Mission, which plays an important role in local communities on such occasions. Although land based, I also congratulate the Tynemouth Volunteer Life Brigade, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year.

Greg Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that respect for the dangers that fishermen face comes from all parties of the House, and that we appreciate the dangerous job they do?

Alan Campbell: It is a pleasure to do that. That respect is something we all share and exists in fishing communities, whoever they send to the House to represent them.
	North Shields fishing port is one of the most important ports on the east coast—certainly the most important port between the Humber and the border—and its regeneration over the years is taking shape with good-quality houses and some excellent restaurants. However, it is still a working fishing port that is responsible for hundreds of local jobs, and boats come from all over the United Kingdom to use its facilities, particularly the fish market.
	There is a constant need for regeneration and renewal in such a historical place. The Western Quay regeneration is complete, but work needs to be done on the fish quay where fish are landed. I know from experience that schemes require the involvement of all sorts of different bodies, including the fish quay company, the local authority, the MMO and the Port of Tyne—it previously would have involved the development agency. European funding plays an important part, too.
	I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, in the past, regeneration has been agreed by all parties—until the question of money is raised, when they look out of the window or stare at their shoes. I am not asking the Minister for money. I am asking for a commitment on behalf of all the Government agencies that might be involved to use their good offices—and resources, if they have them—to ensure that that regeneration goes ahead. If it does not, the industry in the area could be in trouble.
	Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the European Commission has launched a major investigation into previous funding in the region because of issues of governance? Is it true that the Commission has refused to sign off the €464 million for the region? What are the implications for schemes such as the fish quay at North Shields?

Alan Beith: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because it is potentially important to the fishing industry. I met the Business Secretary on the subject a few days ago. There is an urgency to Ministers’ devising a mechanism that is acceptable to the European Commission to enable us to access funds that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can access.

Alan Campbell: My understanding of the question of governance is that there is a problem predominantly in the local enterprise partnership, which needs to get a grip. It needs to give the necessary guarantees not just for the funding that has already been promised, but for future schemes, which I have mentioned. I hope the Government address that urgently.
	I associate myself with the comments on the severity of cuts in general made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby in his typically powerful speech, but I want to concentrate my final remarks on the question of the landing obligation, or the discard ban, which is due to be brought in for pelagics at the beginning of next year, which is just a few weeks away, and for other fisheries in 2016.
	Putting aside for a moment the question of quotas, which I know created the issue in the first place, there are problems with the implementation of the discard ban. To be honest, most if not all hon. Members in the Chamber signed up to it as a good idea to a greater or lesser extent, but now implementation is starting, the fishermen are beginning to realise how difficult it will be. It will be particularly difficult for small ports, but not so much for North Shields, which I believe will be able to cope. There is an urgency for small ports, and if it cannot be addressed, we should not go down the route of implementing the ban in the way in which it has been planned.
	There are issues about waste going into landfill sites and an argument about what otherwise might have gone into marine ecosystems. As has been said previously, there are particular concerns about mixed fisheries. The north-east needs its mixed fisheries, and therefore that needs to be addressed. We need to learn lessons from countries such as Norway, and we need to consider phasing in. If that is not possible, the Minister needs to tell us why and to reassure fishermen on the implementation of the scheme.
	In my experience, limited as it is in this matter in the House, changes in the fishing industry have been best when the scientists and the environmental lobby, but most importantly the fishermen, are signed up. When the environmental lobby is so powerful, we should remind ourselves that the most important environmentalists are the fishermen. They depend on the environment for their living. That has probably been passed down from generation to generation. We must ensure that, when new policies are implemented, the fishermen are part of the decision, and that, as far as possible, they can be reassured.

Oliver Colvile: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and I sat on the Backbench Business Committee when we gave permission for the debate. We did exactly the right thing. I think I got into some trouble for voicing my support and he duly told me off.
	As hon. Members may know, I represent Plymouth, which has a global reputation for marine science engineering and research. That includes not only the Royal Navy, which is an incredibly important part of that reputation, but the university, which specialises in marine biological research. I recently hosted a reception on the Terrace
	for the university, which had done a lot of research with Interreg on the importance of marine activity to the industry.
	The Plymouth Marine Laboratory is in my constituency. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to go there to meet some of my great scientists. He kindly came to see Interfish, a big fish producer in my constituency, in the summer, and I would be grateful if he came to meet PML, which has done a significant amount of work on climate change and provided a lot of evidence.

Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend mentions the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. It is doubly useful for hon. Members to visit when they can because the chief International Council for the Exploration of the Sea scientist works there.

Oliver Colvile: Because PML is such a good scientific base, as a compromise, there is a minor MMO sub-office. As my hon. Friend may be aware, I am keen for it to come to Plymouth.
	Plymouth also has the Marine Biological Association, which was set up in 1884 by Sir Andrew Huxley, specifically to have the big debate of the day on whether we could overfish waters around our country. This is the first opportunity I have had to express my gratitude to the Government for giving the MBA a royal charter in 2013. It is incredibly proud of that.
	During the course of working for the debate, I visited Plymouth Trawlers, an established agency in my constituency based down towards the Barbican. I spoke to Dave Cuthbert, who has a wonderful e-mail address—it starts with “Davethefish”. He said that the coming of the December Council and the proposed cuts in skates and rays of 20% will create a major problem. It is exactly the same problem that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) described so precisely and so well. Dave the Fish said:
	“Rays have been cut in quota for the last 3 years based on the fact that it is data deficient and automatically cut by 20%”.
	Will the Minister propose that that cut does not go ahead? Dave the Fish says that the Minister will probably say that the automatic cut is recommended by ICES. However, if we are cutting in such a way and no longer taking notice of historical data—I understand that that is in article 17 of the latest common fisheries policy reform—what is the basis for the quota? I do not understand it. We either rely on the data available when the scientists have done their work, or go back to historical data. I have concerns about the historical data, because not all fish behave in the same manner over time.
	The Minister will no doubt come back and give the standard reply that Dave the Fish has seen on a couple of letters—the letters state that the Government are “already compliant with their approach to quota allocation”. My friend Dave the Fish found those letters difficult to understand.
	Dave the Fish points out that, under the fixed quota allocation, the same suspects have the same quota year on year to maintain stability. Nothing has changed, and large companies are buying every scrap of quota that becomes available. My hon. Friend the Minister may be aware that there are a large amount of boats under 10 metres in my constituency and they are most certainly
	feeling the effects of that. Indeed, during the course of my visit to the trawler company and the Plymouth fish market—the first electronic market in the whole of the south-west—I was stunned by the level of scepticism from the fishermen and those in the trade. I should be grateful if the Minister would look at how that might work.
	I have always been incredibly keen to ensure that we have a significant amount of data before decisions are made on marine conservation areas. Such decisions must be evidence-based. The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) rightly said that support must come not only from scientists but fishermen too. This issue relates to the whole of the fishing industry, and that includes people’s livelihoods. On my visit, I spoke to people about the scallop industry, which I understand is the third-largest part of the fishing industry. They complained that the hand picking of scallops was not subject to the same regulation as commercial operations. It seems to be a bit of a mess.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to know that early in the new year—I take on board all the incredibly important safety issues—I have volunteered to go out on another fishing boat. I am afraid that the last time I went I was sick seven times. The awful smell of diesel and fish—a rather nasty cocktail—was combined with the boat going backwards and forwards and up and down, while I looked at the horizon. I am afraid to say that the only way I could get any kind of surety back into my being was to go and stand outside and enjoy the whistling rain and the enormous amount of coldness. I am quite fearful about doing this, but I am as determined as I was last time around not to say, “I’m a wimp and I need to go back.”
	A daily and salient reminder of the importance of safety in the fishing industry is the wall in the Barbican that is plastered with signs paying tribute to those who have died while fishing at sea. It would be very helpful if the Minister could supply the relevant historic data. I wish him the best of luck in his discussions with our European Council colleagues in the very near future.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted to be called in this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I do not have a fishing community in my constituency. We have anglers, as opposed to fishermen, on the River Forth.
	I want to speak in this debate for two reasons. First, fishing communities need advocates from outside their communities too, no matter how fantastic the contributions have been from hon. Members across the House. We need to re-establish the connection between our fishing industry and fishing communities, and the wider population. Frankly, fish do not come pre-packed in Tesco, Morrisons, Waitrose, Lidl and so on—I do not want to get into trouble with anybody for not mentioning a particular supermarket. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds me that we used to see fish on fishmongers’ slates. That is not necessarily the case nowadays.
	Secondly, I have a family interest in fishing that I would like to put on the record. My son is a fisherman. He fishes out of a very small island community that is represented by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an
	Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in his place today. The community has a significant inshore fishing industry. I echo the comments by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) that we sometimes forget just how dangerous it can be. It is not a very high-profile industry in the media, but the concern, when seeing spouses or children going out to fish, is real for many families. My son will be mortified that I have mentioned my particular concern in public, but sometimes we have to say these things.
	I want to concentrate on the structure of the industry. Before I do so, however, I echo the comments that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall made at the beginning of her speech. We owe a debt of gratitude to the mechanisms that support both the onshore and offshore industries. I listened yesterday to a spokesperson for the Barra lifeboat. I understand from the log I have just read that it was called out yesterday and faced 14 metre waves. It is very difficult for us sitting here today to contemplate what 14 metre waves look like. The volunteers of the RNLI, men and women, deserve our thanks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) alluded to the structure of the industry. There is, without doubt, a major issue relating to the balance of quotas. I recognise that we need large fishing vessels, but we need to remember that the quota system was set in the 1980s, when the overall contribution to landings by small fishing boats was underestimated.

Sheryll Murray: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a place for both large and small vessels? Small vessels feed the market with day-caught fresh fish, while the larger vessels spend more days at sea and contribute quantity. There is a place for both.

Anne McGuire: I was coming on to that exact point. Considering the balance in the industry is not about undermining the contribution of one, or ignoring the contribution of the other. The hon. Lady makes a valuable point.
	The quotas were set 25 to 30 years ago, and there has been a decreasing allocation for small inshore fishing vessels. The 5,000 small vessels, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted, currently have only 4% of the quota. It is increasingly difficult for inshore fishermen to make their small businesses—for that is what they are—viable, but they are part of the supply chain and they bring money into local communities.
	I do not accept everything that Greenpeace says, but it is worth highlighting the article alluded to by the hon. Member for Waveney. A large Dutch ship, the Cornelis Vrolijk, flies a British flag—my understanding is that one can get a British flag by registering and paying £111—and currently takes up an enormous proportion of the UK quota. All of the 34,000 tonne ship’s landings go to Holland. Nothing goes to any UK port. The implications for the local economy, the processing industry and so on cannot be underestimated.
	I understand that one of the criteria for registering for a British flag is that an economic link with Britain be demonstrated. Will the Minister explain the economic link between the large vessels that are scooping up—legitimately—their quotas and Britain, which allows those vessels to fly a British flag without landing in
	Britain? What efforts will he make to rebalance the quota allocation? What engagement has he had with inshore fisherman? Can the UK take that process forward unilaterally or does it have to be part of a wider engagement within the EU?
	It has been suggested, and I have seen nothing to the contrary, that the fishing industry will be represented at the Fisheries Council by the 7th Baron De Mauley. As Scottish National Members know, although I agree with their party on some areas, I have difficulties with some of its policies. However, I find it astonishing that this year’s fisheries discussions are not being led by the most experienced Fisheries Minister in Europe, the current Scottish Fisheries Minister. I do not know why that has happened. I do not know why the noble Lord De Mauley has been hauled in—an appropriate phrase, given that we are talking about fishing—to these discussions. Why should fishermen have confidence in somebody with no apparent connection with the fishing industry?

George Eustice: I think the right hon. Lady is labouring under some confusion. I will be at the December Fisheries Council next week, representing the interests of the whole UK. The purpose of this debate is for me, as UK Minister, to receive representations from Members throughout the UK. One major problem with being represented by the Scottish Fisheries Minister is that he would not be here, at this Dispatch Box, to take representations from across the UK.

Anne McGuire: I hear what the Minister says.

Eilidh Whiteford: I do not know how accountable an unelected Member of the House of Lords can be. However, does the right hon. Lady share my concern that the issue—for once—is not that he is unelected, but the effectiveness of his contribution and his lack of experience to represent the industry? It is a bit like playing the sub and keeping the star striker on the bench.

Anne McGuire: When he winds up the debate, I hope the Minister will clarify the situation. Will the noble Lord be part of the discussions? Will the Minister be leading the delegation? I know he has great experience of, and takes a great interest in, the fishing industry, but in some circumstances it would be appropriate for a Scottish Fisheries Minister to represent the UK. The Minister has to prove that a Scottish Fisheries Minister cannot represent the views of the whole UK industry. Under the Labour Administration in Holyrood and here, the Scottish Fisheries Minister occasionally led those discussions. In the interests of mature partnership within the UK, and given the significant interest of the Scottish fishing industry in these discussions, he should tell us why the lead is not being taken by the Scottish Fisheries Minister. There might be a straightforward answer, but I think we need to be more mature in the way we co-operate across these islands in representing the UK in these discussions.
	I will not be here, but I hope the next time we have a fisheries debate in this Chamber, it will be in Government time. It should not be the subject of a Backbench Business Committee decision, although the Committee
	has always been very supportive of holding this debate. The fishing industry is too important for the Government not to take responsibility for holding the debate in their own time.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), although I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will resist her suggestion that the Scottish Minister should represent the whole UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) knows, that would certainly be an issue in our part of the world. Under the principle of relative stability, areas south of the Scottish border have had a difficult deal for decades, and it would be remiss of us to present the UK case as if it were primarily a Scottish issue.

Sheryll Murray: To clarify, to report back to the House, someone has to be a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for us to be represented by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, who could not report back to the Chamber, would be quite inappropriate?

Andrew George: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, although I think this is a bit of a sideshow. Given that the Minister will be representing the UK, I do not know why we have had this rather unnecessary skirmish.
	In my short contribution, I do not want to repeat many of the issues that other Members have articulated extremely well; there is much consensus, and I want only to repeat some of the themes. I think we all supported the reforms to the common fisheries policy in 2011 and the principles promoted in those reforms, but the situation now indicates that some of those principles are unravelling to the detriment of the fishing industry. That is the issue I primarily wish to address today.
	In my opening remarks, I should also reflect on the enormous contribution that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) has made to fisheries debates over many years. We have agreed on much, but we have disagreed occasionally. Certainly, as I indicated to him the other day, I strongly disagreed when he decided to change his name by deed poll from “Haddock” back to “Mitchell”. It was a great disappointment, but I shall forgive him.
	It is also appropriate that we reflect on the risks taken by those who work so hard to put fish on our tables. I engage in these fisheries debates every year, but when I reflect on my earliest days in the House, I remember that when I arrived here in 1997 we lost seven fishermen to the sea: three fishermen died when the Gorah Lass sank in St Ives bay early that year, and when the beam trawler Margaretha Maria went down we lost four members of our local community. If it was not already evident, that brought home to me how much of a risk these men were taking to ply their trade. Safety within the industry has improved, and as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said, the statistics suggest that we are not losing as many lives in the industry as in the past. Nevertheless, it is an extremely hazardous profession and the risks remain high.
	I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said about marine conservation zones, but I believe that we should be doing precisely what the Government are doing and rolling out marine
	conservations zones. I served on the Committee for the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which introduced MCZs. I encouraged the then Government to adopt the amendments that I was attempting to introduce at that time, which were to the effect that the designation of the marine conservation zones should be based on science alone, but that the conservation plans for the zones should be subject to wider consultation. Unfortunately, it is the other way round in the Act, with consultation taking place before designation, and then no obligation to conduct consultation over the management plans. I am pleased that the Government are now taking note of the views of the industry and other stakeholders in the rolling-out of marine conservation plans and I think that is the right way forward. We must also ensure that the fishing industry is viewed as a major and very significant stakeholder and that we marry the interests of marine ecology with the sustainability of the fishing industry for the future.
	I mentioned that I was pleased with the outcome of the common fisheries policy reform because of its emphasis on management for the long term. I and many others have campaigned for many years for more power to go to regional management. The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) mentioned the issue of a ban on discards, and I expressed my concern about implementation because of the difficulty of distinguishing between intended and unintended overcatch in the fish quota.

Robert Smith: Everyone recognises the need to end discards, but the feedback we are getting now is that we need to phase it in much more gently, so that we can learn lessons and ensure that we do not do any unintended damage to the whole operation.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that the Government are phasing this in next year in respect of the pelagic sector and in the demersal sector thereafter. Lessons certainly need to be learned during the roll-out of the discard ban, particularly at the early stages, and we then need to adjust the method of implementing the discard ban in the light of those lessons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made an excellent speech and she was absolutely right about the implementation of the minimum sustainable yield targets. If the purpose of the 2011 reforms was to manage for the long term, one of the disbenefits stemming from implementation of the MSY proposals is that it is resulting across many sectors in significant short-termism, creating shocks within the industry, all of which are contributing to an environment that makes it much more difficult, in my view, to advance sustainable fishing. Management conservation has thus become much more difficult. The Minister will be aware of concerns not just about the many sectors already mentioned, but about the western waters area VII crab sector. The clunky and short-term approach is having a seriously detrimental impact on that sector in my part of the world.
	I conclude, as I am keen to stick to the time limits, by wishing the Minister well in the forthcoming European Council discussions. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall about the importance of fighting to continue and to strengthen the protection of our 6 to 12-mile zones and
	of strengthening the role of regional management—an issue that we have not emphasised enough in these discussions. Many methods by which we can resolve the difficulties identified today involve making more decisions locally ourselves within the regional structure.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). This afternoon, in common with others, I want to open my remarks by remembering all those lost at sea in the last year, and in particular by paying my respects to James Noble, the skipper of the Fraserburgh-registered Ocean Way, and crew members Jhunitzo Antonio and Michael PulPul who were all lost off the coast of Northumberland just a few weeks ago. My thoughts are with their families, friends, and the surviving crew members, and all those who have lost loved ones in this most dangerous working environment. In common with others, too, I would like to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, who voluntarily risk their own lives to save others, to our coastguards, and of course to the Fishermen’s Mission and other welfare organisations that do so much to support our fishing communities.
	I would also like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for all the work they have done as chair and secretary of the all-party group on fisheries. Even though we have not always agreed, it has been a pleasure working with them on behalf of our fishing and processing sectors, and as they both step down from Parliament next year, I wish them the very best for whatever comes next.
	This time last year I highlighted some of the challenges we face in relation to the implementation of the landing obligation. Those problems have not diminished over the last 12 months; they have become more pressing, as the discard ban comes into effect for our pelagic fleet in the next three weeks. The pelagic sector has not had an easy run in recent years. Although we saw some progress in resolving the protracted mackerel dispute with Iceland and Faroe earlier this year, the trade sanctions imposed on the EU by Russia in response to the political situation in Ukraine have hit our pelagic exports disproportionately hard, and I know that the Scottish Government and indeed the UK moved very quickly to help the industry identify and develop new export markets. Although our mackerel saw a 9% fall in value last year, it remains our most valuable stock, and it supports hundreds of onshore jobs in my constituency in addition to those at sea.
	Arguably, implementing the landing obligation should be easier for the pelagic fleet than anyone else because of the nature of the stock and the fact that there will not be much by-catch, but I understand that there are still contradictory regulations in force, and these regulatory inconsistencies do not look like they will be ironed out in time for the first phase of the landing obligation on 1 January. I understand that the so called “omnibus process” has been stuck in co-decision-making, and it would be helpful to get an update from the Government on where that has got to today.
	Now, we could say that the sky is not going to fall in because the revised regulations are not fully signed and sealed, but I think it sends the wrong signal to our
	fishermen and undermines the discard ban before it has even got under way. That undermining of confidence is also relevant to the issue I raised with the Minister earlier this morning about enforcement and the lack of a consistent compliance regime that applies to all vessels fishing in our waters. It would be wholly unacceptable for our boats to be working to one set of rules, and third party states fishing in our waters to be subject to another—potentially less stringent—set of rules.
	I was pleased to hear from the Minister this morning that some progress was made on this issue at the recent EU-Norway talks, and I hope he will take the opportunity today to spell out the detail and clarify whether it will actually deliver the level playing field that the industry is demanding.
	The problems with implementing the landing obligation will get more acute when it is introduced for the demersal fleet in 2016, which is probably the source of the greatest concern. Progress has, I think, been pitifully slow over the last year, and time to develop workable solutions is now running out. It is going to be a whole lot more complicated to implement a discard ban for the whitefish fleet simply because it is a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are working in a context of quota shortages, choke species, lack of flexibility and a system of single species quotas that is simply no longer fit for purpose.
	I raised the issue of choke species at the last fisheries debate, and the situation has not really changed. A good example that Peterhead fishermen have raised with me is saithe. They are seeing a lot of it, they do not have much quota for it, and it is low value, with no big market, but it is also quite a big fish, so selective gear is not going to help. What do they do? They cannot land it; they cannot discard it. Will they have to stop fishing for everything else? That would cripple the industry—and very quickly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has on previous occasions raised similar concerns about dogfish on the west coast of Scotland, with the one difference that there might actually be a market for that. If we are to have any hope of making this landing obligation workable, we absolutely need to move away from single species quotas. We need flexibility between adjoining ICES areas where there is evidence that it is the same stock, and that an appropriate quota is available. After speaking to industry leaders yesterday, I wonder whether we really need to look at some sort of phasing-in, because this process is not currently on track. I will be interested to hear the Government’s perspective on that.
	I have focused on the landing obligation because it will present serious challenges to the industry a year from now if we do not get it right. We need to be absolutely clear about the fact that discarding is a symptom of poor fisheries management. It is not the fault of the fishermen, and it needs to end. We are in danger of making parts of our fleet unviable, with untold consequences for our processors, our supply chains, our exports and our fishing-dependent communities, such as those that I represent. Discarding has been caused by poor political decisions, not by fishermen, and it is incumbent on us to find solutions to it that are workable and do not jeopardise people’s livelihoods.
	Let me end by saying a little about the December Council, and emphasising to the Minister that there must be no cuts in effort for the Scottish fleet next year. I hope he will assure me that the Government will make that a priority in the negotiations. I am very glad to learn that he will be at the Council meeting; given the severity of the issues affecting the south-west of England, it would be a dereliction of duty if he were not there. However, I fear that the spirit of the 2012 concordat with the Scottish Government has been lost in DEFRA’s revolving doors over the last couple of years, because it is not working as it should. Given that 87% of the United Kingdom’s key stocks are landed in Scotland from Scottish vessels, we ought to recognise that Scotland has an important interest. The Government need to work with their counterparts in Edinburgh—and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom—to make the concordat operate much better than it is operating now.

Sheryll Murray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: I will not, because Members behind me who represent big fishing interests are waiting to speak, and the hon. Lady had a fair amount of time in which to do so.
	Our fishermen do a difficult and dangerous job in circumstances that are quite challenging enough without our making them worse. We need a workable discard ban, and we need it very quickly. This is the biggest challenge that the Scottish industry is currently facing, and Ministers have an opportunity to step up to it.

David Amess: I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for the way in which they have represented their constituents and the work that they have done for the fishing industry—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will, of course, also be remembered for the wonderful photographs that he has taken over the years—and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). She is an expert on these matters, and it was her family who made the supreme sacrifice.
	I was impressed by the oratory of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who is no longer in the Chamber. He is a wonderful advocate for the fishing industry. As I listened to him, I thought that if I myself ever needed an advocate, he would be my first choice, because I am sure that he could persuade any judge that I was innocent.
	I am a lover of fish. I eat them, and I keep them in various tanks in my office. We are always celebrating births—one of our guppies recently had about 250 babies —but, unfortunately, I must report to the House that we have suffered a fatality. I am thinking of calling for counselling to cheer up the members of my team.
	My constituency is a coastal community. Relatively few of the 646 Members of Parliament represent areas where there are fishermen; if there had been more of us, perhaps we would have been more effective in achieving what we did achieve, although I think that so far this has been a first-class debate. Fishing is a significant source of employment in my constituency, and it makes a significant contribution to our local economy.
	I wholeheartedly support the fishermen whom I represent, and I am frustrated by the fact that they hit a brick wall every time they express their concerns and make first-hand observations to the authorities.
	My local branch of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations recently met representatives of the Marine Management Organisation, the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, the Environment Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Thames Estuary Partnership, London Gateway, the Port of London Authority, and many other bodies. The meeting, which took place on 25 September, left my local fishermen completely confused and frustrated, as all those bodies seemed to be passing the buck and denying their regulatory roles and responsibilities.
	Let me now briefly outline the three issues that concern me: environmental damage, dredging, and the unreasonable and harmful regulation from Brussels. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the referendum.
	First, I want to say something about the 1970s and the neighbouring council of Basildon, the area that I represented between 1983 and 1997. Following the passage of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, Pitsea became one of the country’s largest hazardous waste dumps. Some Members may recall the tragedy that occurred in 1975, when a lorry driver was killed by poisonous fumes at the Pitsea dump. The fumes had been caused by the mixing of his load of toxic waste with another chemical. During my time as Member of Parliament for Basildon I had a very good relationship with Cleanaway Ltd, which ran the site, but some of my local fishermen believe that the creation of the toxic waste dump in Pitsea was based on a flawed assumption. It was assumed that Pitsea lay over an impermeable clay bowl, into which chemicals could be safely poured, but it now appears that it was a clay wedge rather than a clay bowl, sloping down into the Thames estuary.
	I appreciate that the concerns about toxic waste are based on suspicion and anecdotal evidence, but it is important for them to be taken seriously. It is unacceptable to fob off the representatives of an important industry that employs 13,000 people across the country and provides up to 20% of the employment in some of our coastal communities. It is difficult to say whether those concerns are exaggerated, but they are the genuine concerns of my local fishermen, and they should be listened to.
	Before I make my remarks about dredging, which is my second point, let me make clear that I do not want the PR person from the company that I shall name to make a phone call to my office next week to be rude and try to shut me up. That is not the way to lobby Members of Parliament. If constituents have concerns, I for one will raise them, without being contacted by a PR company.

Robert Smith: May I take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about not shutting up voices? Will he join me in congratulating both the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations on all that they have done to inform Ministers and other Members of Parliament of the needs of fishermen? Their voices should be heard and understood in our debates.

David Amess: I certainly do congratulate them. They do not fall into the category that I am about to share with the House.
	There has been dredging in the Thames estuary by DP World and the London Gateway project. I appreciate the contribution that dredging makes to our economy and the employment that it produces, but there are fears that dredging may be causing the decline of certain species of fish. Fishermen in Southend West are mainly concerned about the disappearing stocks of Dover sole, smelt and cod. Local fishermen may not have the specialist equipment or the advanced measuring methods that are required for official investigation, but they do have years, if not generations, of experience of catching fish, and I trust them when they say that stocks are being reduced. I have been told that before dredging began in our area, a fair haul would be between 100 and 200 sole, whereas now it is just three or four. That is absolutely ridiculous.
	There is also empirical evidence to suggest that the disappearance of sole, smelt and cod coincides with dredging. It seems that only the area close to the London Gateway project is affected, as stocks of fish in other areas have not suffered. That area includes Kentish Knock, near Clacton, and the area north of the Gunfleet sands. My local fishermen's hands-on experience leads them to believe that dredging is a real problem. They say that the continued vibration caused by the dredging in our area has caused the geological movement of liquid from under the ground. The liquid may be coming from toxic waste dumps such as the one that I mentioned earlier. Again, that is just an assumption, but it ought to be taken seriously. I think that there should be independent research on this matter, involving the fishermen themselves. Such research would, I believe. give us an answer to the question of the link between the effects of dredging and the declining stocks of certain fish.
	DP World is a listed company trading on both the Dubai and London stock exchanges. It has 60 terminals all around the world and a revenue of over £3 billion. My local fishermen, on the other hand, only ever wanted to catch fish. They depend on the fish to feed them. Something needs to be done to ensure some fairness in this conflict of interests.
	I shall end on the European Union and some advice to the Minister, whether or not he wants it. The fishermen complain about the latest proposed regulation coming from Brussels. It shows how out of touch the European regulators are. There is absolutely no way that the one-size-fits-all regulation practised by Brussels will ever work. My local fishermen are frustrated by the senseless ban from the EU on skate and ray fishery, introduced because of the alleged overfishing. This ban came into force in October and there are fears that it will make many businesses across the UK unviable.
	My local fishermen know at first hand that some species of skate fish, such as the Thornback ray, are in fact the only species that do not appear to be affected in the Thames estuary. Numbers of skate in our area are so high that the fishermen in my constituency have had catches of half a tonne for a day’s fishing. The proposed 20% cut in the quotas for some types of fish for 2015 will be detrimental to the fishing industry in our country and we need to ensure that this is reversed. Fishermen report that the numbers of Thornback ray are at an all-time high and they struggle to understand why they
	are being penalised for the alleged overfishing, according to the rules set by EU decision makers who have no experience whatsoever of local fishing.
	The full driftnet ban proposed by the EU is another piece of legislation that our local fishermen find frustrating. Driftnet is a method used to catch many species around our shores and it is probably one of the most environmentally friendly methods of fishing. The EU’s motivation in introducing such a ban is that there is a problem, but only off the coast of Italy, with swordfish, tuna, turtles, and dolphins accidentally being caught in driftnets. These are not common in our waters, so this just goes to prove how out-of-touch Brussels is putting our fishermen out of business for no reason.
	When many years ago I met Commissioner Emma Bonino, I took her a bunch of red roses and planted a kiss on her cheek. It did not get me anywhere, so I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will use charm more effectively than I did, and I hope that if my party—the Conservative party—wins the next election and there is a referendum, fishing quotas will be at the heart of the renegotiation. I wish the Minister well in his meeting next week, and I hope that, as a tribute to the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Great Grimsby, we achieve what we have all gathered in the Chamber to achieve: fairness for the fishermen and fisherwomen.

Iain Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). He has been a Member of this House since 1983, which is a remarkable achievement of longevity, and longevity has been a theme of today’s debate—both the importance of longevity in the fishing industry and the longevity of some of my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), in standing up for the fishing industry. I have not been a Member of this House as long as they have, but I hope I can follow in their footsteps—although I do not have their wisdom and experience—by trying to do my best for the fishing industry in Hartlepool.
	The fishing industry in Hartlepool is not a staple industry, as it is in some other constituencies, but, returning to the theme of longevity, it spans over 800 years. Generations of Hartlepool families have eked out a living—and they have often just eked out a living—by farming the seas and wanting to pass on their business to the next generation, but during my time in the House, and well before, that has been made increasingly difficult. It is not getting any easier for my constituents to be part of the fishing industry.
	We have had an excellent debate, and I want to single out the contribution of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Our constituencies share similar characteristics. Hartlepool’s fishing fleet, like his, is now composed almost exclusively of the inshore under-10 metre fleet.
	I have asked my fishermen what their main concerns are and what they would like to be highlighted to the House and to the Minister this afternoon, and—as we have heard many times in this debate—they said that the quota levels have been a perennial problem for the
	under-10 metre fleet for many years. Whiting quota has been cut by about 18% this year, and my fishermen tell me that adverse weather conditions in the North sea have pulled some of the larger boats inshore, putting even further pressure on the small fleet. What will the Minister do to address the points about quotas when he goes to Europe on Monday and Tuesday? Will he call for additional support to be given in respect of the Hague preference?

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under-10 metre vessels are unique because they cannot migrate from port to port and area to area to gain a living, and because when they can operate is governed by the weather conditions?

Iain Wright: The hon. Lady has great wisdom and experience in this matter and makes a very good point, and she is absolutely right. The fishermen in the under-10 metre fleet in my patch will not be able to go further afield. They are tied—quite rightly—to the Hartlepool area and will not go much beyond it.
	Discards have been mentioned a number of times. I think the whole House will agree that they are a scandal on economic and ecological grounds. We have all seen the pictures of good, mature, dead cod being thrown back into the sea. That is an absolute disgrace and a reflection of the fact that the rules the fishing industry has to operate under are dysfunctional.
	Phil Walsh, a fisherman in my constituency, sent me an article from the ex-editor of Fishing News, Tim Oliver, which quoted an EU fisheries official stating:
	“High levels of discarding are a persistent problem in this area, both in the whitefish and the flatfish fisheries. Accordingly, scientific advice calls for significant TAC cuts e.g. for cod and haddock.”
	I had to reread that several times. That does not make sense to me or my fishermen constituents. How can it be right that higher discards result in lower quotas? Do increased discards not indicate that stocks, certainly in the North sea, are increasing?
	Are discards not a vivid and tragic illustration that the policy on quotas simply is not working? Nobody wants the seas farmed extensively in the short term at the expense of long-term sustainability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) made that incredibly important point. Generations of Hartlepool fishermen certainly do not want to do that, but I do not see how the current situation is helping the industry. The discard ban is also pushing further consolidation of quotas into the hands of ever fewer and ever larger operators, making it ever more difficult for the under-10 metre fleet to sustain a viable business model.
	What are the Government going to do to ensure that they meet the requirements of article 17 of the reformed common fisheries policy, which the hon. Member for Waveney mentioned, and which requires member states to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, when allocating fishing opportunities? Article 17 should move the quota system away from a method based on what was caught before and away from a system that disproportionately favours those who caught the most in the past. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on the Front Bench says from a sedentary position, it
	should be based on science. My constituents want me to press the Minister on this fundamental matter that greatly affects their livelihoods, so how will his Government implement article 17?
	Fishermen in Hartlepool also make a practical point in that the Marine Management Organisation needs to improve its reporting systems to ensure that there is minimal delay in quota managers getting landings data from the ports. My fishermen report that there have sometimes been significant delays caused by poor reporting lines, which have led to the failures to allocate the available quota for the under-10 metre fleet. That, in turn, has meant that fishermen in Hartlepool have not been able to keep their boats at sea fishing throughout the year. The lack of a prompt reporting line has endangered the economic viability and livelihoods of fishermen in Hartlepool, and that cannot be acceptable. This is something that could be changed for the better, and I hope the Minister will act on those concerns.
	While the Minister is considering that matter, I hope he will also address a further concern. My constituents would like a great deal more clarity from DEFRA on what quota, including any uplifts, is going to be available under the demersal discard ban. Fishermen are telling me that this lack of information is preventing any sort of longer-term business planning. We need to look at the way in which the common fisheries policy and the annual quota have worked. I have made the point in the House before that the annual quota is detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the industry, causing fishermen to work in a knee-jerk, short-termist way. For many of the fishermen in Hartlepool whose fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and even great-great-grandfathers farmed the North sea, that seems a ridiculous way to ensure that the industry is sustainable over the long term. What will the Minister do to address this matter and move us away from the short-term approach towards a much more long-term, sustainable and ultimately viable industry?
	I am very proud to represent in Parliament a town that has had fishing in its blood for more than 800 years. However, thanks to the treacherous nature of the North sea, it is a tough and dangerous living, and because of regulations and the short-term and often contrary approach of European policy, it is being made tougher. I want to see the Hartlepool fishing industry sustained for generations yet to come, but it has been stated loud and clear today that that will be achieved only if the Government recognise the concerns and act to ensure that there will be stock, a viable business model and a livelihood for Hartlepool fishermen for decades to come.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow that eloquent contribution from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). Like others, I should like to start by paying tribute to all those fishermen who put their lives on the line to put food on the nation’s plate. No one knows more about the ultimate price that fishing families pay than my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and I pay tribute to all that she has done in working for safety at sea. I cannot miss this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who worked at the Brixham maritime rescue co-ordination centre in my constituency, which has now
	sadly closed. I call on the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that response times and safety are maintained following the sad loss of the centre.
	I pay tribute to everyone who contributes to helping to keep fishermen safe at sea, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the National Coastwatch Institution. I also pay tribute to all those who support those organisations, particularly the Fishermen’s Mission, which has played an extraordinarily important role in supporting those in Brixham and other communities who have been affected by the winter storms. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referred to 14-metre waves. It is worth pausing to consider that 14 metres is higher than the top of the Public Gallery. Our fishermen go out to sea in quite extraordinary conditions, and we need to do everything we can to support them. Who could forget Fishstock in my constituency? I pay tribute to all those who made it happen, including Jim Portus, who led that venture. Who could forget the contribution made at Fishstock by the Fishwives Choir? I urge everyone to go out and buy their album to support the organisations that keep our fishermen safe at sea.
	I want to talk briefly about crab fisheries. The Minister will be aware of the many historical injustices that have occurred in the crab fisheries sector, and the effect that they are having. We know, for example, that just under 2 million kilowatt days were allocated to the French, while only 545 were allocated to the UK. On top of that, there have been further sudden and drastic reductions that will have a devastating effect. The ports of Salcombe and Dartmouth in my constituency support 30 fishing families, and we know that every job at sea supports five jobs on land. Just one business in Salcombe, Favis, brings in a £2 million turnover to the local economy. The devastating impact on the local economy of the provision that I have mentioned is profound.
	Is it not time, also, to look at the dangerous knock-on effects of the kilowatt days restrictions? Fishermen are dangerously having to cram all their work into short time frames, for example. Regarding the artificial cut-off time of midnight, can we not at least have some flexibility, and a recognition that a 24-hour period at sea is dependent on tides, not on an arbitrary midnight cut-off? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point. Can we also have more support regarding swaps? Rather than having swaps negotiated by the industry at great expense, could that work be done on the industry’s behalf?
	On a brighter note, I would like to thank the Minister for the support provided after last winter’s storms that allowed compensation packages to extend to static fishermen, and for cutting the bureaucracy from a level that I would describe as overwhelming to one that was merely impenetrable and excessive. That was a great help.
	I shall not repeat the many points that have been made today about bass fisheries. That topic was also covered extensively in an earlier debate. I would simply reiterate that imposing a total allowable catch—TAC—quota limit involving further restrictions just will not work. We have already seen the historical injustices that resulted from a unilateral decision by the UK to ban pair-trawling, even though no such ban was extended to French pair-trawling. The irony is that French pair-trawling has continued in British waters, even though UK fishermen are banned from doing it here.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the then Minister under the last regime tried to introduce unilateral restrictions on British bass fishermen, he had to abandon them?

Sarah Wollaston: Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	We are all calling on the Minister not to penalise sport fishermen. Sport fishing is very important to my constituency because it attracts a large number of tourist visitors. Having a one fish-bag limit is illogical when the vast majority of mortality is a result of pair-trawling carried out by the French. I hope that he will hold his ground on that issue and press for a size limit so that the fish can at least spawn. That is a much more sensible way of trying to turn around the bass fishery.
	I also want to mention demersal skates and rays. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) made an extraordinarily eloquent contribution, and I will simply state my support for everything he said rather than repeating it. I will expand on one point, however. I have spoken to fisheries scientists and I understand that one of the problems is that skates and rays are all lumped together as one. We know that some species might be quite rare, but as we have heard from the hon. Member for Hartlepool and others, some are not rare at all and, in my patch, the fishermen just cannot avoid catching them. The situation is completely illogical. Would it not be better to support fisheries scientists to work on board our fishing vessels to assist in clearly differentiating the species by practical means, so that they can be returned to the sea?
	The irony is that a total discard ban will have many unintended consequences if it is not imposed in a nuanced way. We know that many skates and rays will survive if returned to the sea. Paradoxically, we would be changing from a system in which fish were discarded at sea and might have survived to one in which they are discarded on land. That is entirely illogical. Will the Minister address that point and assure the House that he will press for a nuanced application of the ban in relation to skates and rays? The measures will have a profound effect on the fishermen in my constituency.
	A constant theme of this afternoon’s debate has been the lack of data and the effect that poor data have on our fishing communities. I urge the Minister to look closely at the effect on our plaice fisheries. Plaice have benefited in many ways from some of the sole restrictions, but we need to examine the way in which the quotas are being applied. For example, he will know that in some fisheries the areas D and E are accounted together but recorded separately. May I urge him to support at least the status quo in this and other areas and not a cut, as we need to increase the limits for sole?
	We need to take a scientifically led approach, but we cannot do so if further drastic cuts are made to our science base. In the Minister’s discussions, will he insist that funding for our fisheries scientists comes directly from the EU, rather than from local budgets? That would be a very good use of resources. As we move towards landing everything that is caught, the collection of data will become easier, but there will be a considerable delay—an unnecessary one in the case of demersal species. In the meantime we face even more gaps in the data, and if further missing data results in an automatic
	20% cut, that is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will strongly press that point when he goes to the European Council.
	Finally, let me deal with the issue of the MMO, as looking at what has happened there provides a heart-sink moment. I can only reinforce the points made so eloquently by so many Members. It is unacceptable that fishermen are paying the price for the incompetence of others; in other sectors that would result in compensation, but it is not resulting in compensation for our industry. We are talking about bankruptcies and the loss of an industry that will not return. What is the Minister going to do to get a grip of the situation and make sure that that does not happen again? The “Have Your Say” panels were heralded by the MMO on 5 November—five weeks ago—but we are still waiting to hear the details. Perhaps he could also set that out in this answer.
	Looking further afield, has the Minister seen the article published in PLOS ONE yesterday by Marcus Eriksen and others, which referred to the 5 trillion pieces of plastic now floating on the surface of our seas? It particularly deals with the effect of microplastics—very small particles that attract organic chemicals to their surface and enter the food chain. It is sobering to remember that the great Pacific garbage patch of swirling eddy current is now larger than Texas, and it is just one of many. We have to deal not only with microplastics but with larger plastics, which are so dangerous to cetaceans and turtles. Is that actually going to register on the agenda at some point? Perhaps it is not for the forthcoming Council meeting, but the article is an important publication and I hope the Minister will read it.
	I wish the Minister success in the Council negotiations. I heard his predecessor say that the collective noun for fisheries Ministers is “an exhaustion”. It is worth being exhausted and I hope that this Minister will spare no effort in exhaustion on behalf of our fishing communities, many of which I am proud to represent. I wish him well.

Anne Begg: I realise that time is now short, so I will try to keep my comments brief. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) in their last fisheries debate. Both have been stalwarts of all the fisheries debates that have taken place since I entered the House. I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, simply because of the help and support he has given me as a constituency MP with the fishing interests, particularly in the processing sector. Whenever I have been at a loss as to how to proceed with a case, he has been there with guidance and advice. He has done a huge amount of work on behalf of a particular group of processors who feel that they have been hard done by in the past because of the prevalence of black fish and the consequences it had on the industry, which he mentioned in his speech.
	I will confine my remarks to the processing side because, as my hon. Friend said, very few boats are coming out of Aberdeen harbour these days. The fish market is in his constituency, just over the border and a stone’s throw from mine, but a vibrant processing industry remains in Aberdeen. In the north-east of Scotland the industry is worth £500 million a year, so it is still a big,
	important industry and it has not been completely overtaken by oil and gas, although that is perhaps what we talk about more in this Chamber. The processors feel a wee bit aggrieved, because they feel that they get left out in a lot of these discussions—this afternoon’s debate has been almost wholly about the catching side. They think that is perhaps because the catching sector has a much more effective lobby, and that is true in respect of the information I received for this afternoon’s debate. The processors also feel that they are not always listened to, but they are an important part of the sector.
	The sustainability of the processors’ business is dependent on what the catching side does. They tell me that fishing is about hunting a raw material, and for processors that means spikes and troughs in their business, depending on the fish that have been landed. As their business comes in fits and starts, it is difficult for them to sustain their business throughout the low times. Strange things happen in the industry as a result of unintended consequences. For instance, if Scottish haddock is expensive, as it often is, it goes for fishmeal and the consumer gets the cheaper Norwegian and Icelandic haddock, all of which are bigger and are processed and cut to look like Scottish haddock. That cannot right, but obviously the supermarkets are looking for the cheapest raw material they can buy in order to sell it. The Government and the Scottish Government need to look at that problem.
	The processors also tell me that there is an imbalance in the industry. They have lobbied Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment, but they feel he is not listening and that they are somehow the poor relation when it comes to any decisions taken on the fishing industry. They also feel that they face a different problem relating to EU policy—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) will be delighted to hear about yet another thing he can beat the EU around the head with. It has been brought about because of the horsemeat scandal and the labelling. The processors tell me that the labelling that the EU hopes to impose on the industry will simply not be workable, because it will require them to segregate the different fish, and that will bring their production to a halt. Let me explain how that would happen.
	A big processor does not buy its raw materials from a single source and it might make 20 to 30 purchases from 15 to 20 boats. From the scientific point of view, the vessels and the area of the sea that the catch comes from is important, but for processors to have to say which fish came from which purchase and from which boat is just too difficult—it is nonsensical. Their fear is that jobs could be lost as a result. They will continue to adopt, as they have managed to do over the years in the face of a lot of fairly cheap imports. That is still the case, because the supermarkets are putting pressure on the prices. If the supermarkets want breaded haddock, they want it at the cheapest price and they do not care whether it is Norwegian haddock or the much superior Scottish haddock. In this case, the cheapest is not the best.
	As I say, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Aberdeen North. They say that it is their last fisheries debate, but I hope that it is not mine, and a number of hon. Members might feel the same. Our future is in the hands of our electors, but I hope that on fishing they feel that we have represented them well in Parliament this afternoon.

Eric Ollerenshaw: The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I always seem to be the tail-end Charlies in these debates in the House. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for the advice that he has given to me on the fishing industry. I also wish to thank him, on behalf of many families in Fleetwood, for the work that he and the late Mark Hamer did in fighting for proper compensation. They owe him a great debt of gratitude, and I am glad to have put that on the record.
	I will try not to repeat what others have said, but I should like to touch on the matter of quotas. Although I am no expert on fishing, I, like other Members, have found that fishermen tend to be extremely generous with their advice, and I am most grateful to them for that. In particular, I thank Steve Welsh for all his help.
	In the 1970s, something like 9,000 people worked in the fishing industry in Fleetwood, 8,000 of whom have now gone. When the Prime Minister renegotiates terms with Europe in the next Conservative Government, he must ensure that there is something on the common fisheries policy. If he does not, we do not need a crystal ball to know how the people in Fleetwood will vote when it comes to a European referendum.
	Steve Welsh goes out to sea in one of the three remaining over-10 metre boats. He is concerned about the constant expansion of wind farms in the Irish sea. I encourage people to stand on Fleetwood front, as they will see lovely views of the Lake district, but in the past, they would also have been able to see the Isle of Man. But now between us and the Isle of Man is an array of wind farms. I do not know whether anybody has produced any studies on the impact of those wind farms on marine life. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if he knows of any, because all I have seen are contradictory views. Obviously, the wind farms have reduced our fishing grounds, but they are also posing a threat to both fishermen and ferries.
	The other issue raised by Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), is that of quotas. I will not repeat what has been said, but let me mention William Bamber, William McGough, John Worthingon and Rod Collinson, who are the under-10 metre fishermen in Fleetwood. Their livelihood in winter depends on hauling in the skate and the ray. As Members have so eloquently put it, what happened in October has had a dramatic impact on the few fishermen in Fleetwood.
	We have heard about the science behind the quotas, but, like other hon. Members, I really do not understand where the figures come from. Funnily enough, the fishermen say that the skate is plentiful. They say that the measurements have been cut down. We only have their subjective analysis of what is going on and they say that there is no problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) said, rather than having a regional policy towards quotas, we use a one-size-fits-all policy. Will the Minister comment further on that?
	Let me give a practical example now. One fisherman arranged a meeting with the Marine Management Organisation. Funnily enough, I had been trying to
	arrange such a meeting myself, but all I got was its staff asking my staff, “Why does an MP want to meet us?” I will continue to pursue that. The fisherman met the staff. He said, “Why can’t the under-10 metre boats have the logbooks that the other fishermen have?” The MMO said to him, “There’s nothing against you having a log, but we are not giving you one.” He was making a practical suggestion to improve what was going on and was simply turned down by the bureaucrats saying, “Logs are not for the under-10 metre boats, so we can’t give you one.” How crazy is that? Fishermen in our most sustainable fleet—the under-10 metre boats—are offering to help out by providing evidence that the Minister needs when he goes to his meetings. Like other Members, they do not want to see any cut in the quota. They want to challenge the fact that the under-10 metre boats have only 4% of the quota. The fishermen’s livelihood in winter is based around hauling in skate and ray, and at the moment that has gone. Soon there will be nothing left in the docks of Fleetwood.
	Let me finish on a far more positive point. I know that this is not in the Minister’s area, but we still have fish processing in Fleetwood. We have 600 jobs in 29 companies in Fleetwood scattered around the docks. Some are based in 19th-century buildings. Tons of shellfish and fish come into Fleetwood nightly by truck, and are dealt with by our workers. It is a credit to them that their skills are still used to support a work force of 600.
	There is one company that is trying to expand, but it is being held back by its premises, which are old-fashioned and do not meet the standards on which supermarkets insist for fish processing. An application has gone in to the Minister with responsibility for regional growth funds. I know that it is not the Minister’s area, but I assume that with this holy grail that we all want of Government singing from the same hymn sheet, he might be willing to have a word with the Department for Communities and Local Government about this application to build a centralised fish park in Fleetwood.
	We want a modern building to house and sustain all the existing businesses, with a potential to increase employment by 25%. That bid is currently with the regional growth fund, and I am asking the Minister for his support. It has the support of Wyre district council, the county council, the Member of Parliament and all the businesses that flourish around fish processing in Fleetwood. It would be the new Billingsgate for the north, and possibly a great tourist attraction, as it would be displaying the traditional skills from which Fleetwood has benefited. Those skills have enabled the area to survive the depredations to the sea-going fleet. Such a development would put Fleetwood back on the map as a major centre of the fish industry.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for introducing this debate. I understand that he has taken part in 38 years of fishing debates in this House, so we will miss him when he is gone. Obviously, he has seen 38 years of change. The debates 38 years ago were probably good and positive, but today they are more negative as we see the effects of the bureaucracy in Europe.
	I represent a constituency with a rich fishing industry. Portavogie is one of the villages that I represent. It used to have a vibrant industry, with 120 boats coming into the harbour. Now we have between 70 and 75, a third of which are boats of 10 metres and under. Again, we have seen changes in the fishing industry.
	As we all know, fishermen do not have a nine-to-five job. Their work is dependent on the weather conditions and the seasons, which determine whether they can catch a certain type of fish. Last weekend, the film “The Perfect Storm” was on TV with its haunting tune, as was the series the “Deadliest Catch”. Those programmes underline the danger that our fishermen face whenever they go fishing. The fishermen are also dependent on EU fishing regulations.
	Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the management of the UK bass stocks. The Minister was present. As we heard, the big danger for bass stocks at the moment is the fact that they are being fished as soon as they leave the nurseries at just six and seven years old. In his response, the Minister said that he would look at that issue. We hope that he can give us some reassurance on that matter.
	At the end of October, the European Commission published its proposals for total allowable catches and for the fishing effort both for stocks managed exclusively by the EU and for stocks managed with third countries such as Norway or through the regional fisheries management organisations across the world’s oceans. For many stocks, more selective fishing techniques are urgently needed, so that young fish are not caught before they can reproduce and replenish the fish stocks. That is particularly urgent for fish in the Celtic sea and the western waters, where big efforts are needed to implement the selectivity measures advised by scientists. That will also help our fishing sector comply with the obligation to land all catches as of next year and to become more profitable in the medium term.
	That is all very commendable, but it puts the pressure on. We need to bear in mind the introduction of the EU’s landing obligation on demersal fisheries from 1 January 2016. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked about that, and other Members have spoken about it. It almost crept up on us, and all of a sudden its implications for the fishing industry are real and will have a great impact upon us in Northern Ireland. That is because the TAC set for 2015 will become the benchmark from which quotas should be uplifted in 2016 to reflect the landing obligation. Therefore the figures for Scotland from 1 January 2015 will have an impact on the rest of us elsewhere.
	Not only is the situation with cod in the Irish sea critical, but the situation with nephrops is no better. Nephrops is by far the most important stock in our fishing industry, which makes it vital to the local processing sector as well. In recent years the UK and Ireland have successfully made the case that the TAC must be uplifted above the “sum of the science” to account for consistent undershoots in the TAC. I was recently heartened to learn that the Irish Minister shares the same priorities for the Irish sea as I understand we shall shortly hear from the Minister.
	As we look forward to next week’s negotiations, I am heartened that the priorities of the two member states with the biggest stake in the Irish sea fisheries are aligned—in other words, they are working together.
	Nevertheless, it is frustrating to hear that even during preliminary discussions with the Commission, the Commission continues to scorn the UK and Ireland’s arguments on some of these TAC issues. The threat remains that Irish sea priorities might fall in the face of the Commission’s intransigence. May I respectfully remind the Minister about the priority of decentralisation or regionalisation? Where does the Commission’s position fit into that policy in the face of a unified approach by the two most important regional member states in the Irish sea? Again, I would welcome the Minister’s observations on that.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred to the European Union and the referendum. It will be interesting to see how much effort is made in the Brussels talks to court us in relation to quotas and to ensure that we have pre-eminence in the discussion of these matters. In December 2012, it was argued that reducing the TAC to the levels of the ICES advice would be unnecessarily restrictive for countries with full quota uptake, such as Ireland and the UK, and could lead to under- exploitation of sustainably fished stocks. I shall not baffle the House with figures, but a comparison of the percentages that were allowed and then reduced makes it clear that, given the reduced landings from the area and improved cumulative science, we should be aiming for a slightly increase in the nephrops total allowable catch in 2015. That is the bottom line, and we hope the Minister will be able to deliver on that.
	There is no directed fishery for Irish sea cod. This year, for a very short season, two vessels were involved in a fishery, under scientific investigation—the scientists are always there—during the early autumn of 2014. Unsurprisingly, during the rest of the year, these vessels fish for nephrops. So far, as I am sure the Minister is aware, the results seem to show that there is a good cod spawning stock biomass in the Irish sea, which augurs well for the future. However, the Commission has proposed a cut in TAC of 20% in line with the cod recovery plan. It is difficult to understand why, with signs of growth and bigger and better cod in the Irish sea, more restrictions are imposed.
	This further reduction is likely to mean higher discards, even if the nephrops fleet lands less than 1.5% cod. Growing recognition abounds that with the significant reduction in fishing effort and fishing mortality in Irish sea cod, there must be additional factors at play with this stock. Although restrictions are necessary for the future of the fishing industry, I hope the Minister will give some thought to the cod TAC. The Commission has so far chosen not to make any proposal for effort reductions. Again, I should like to hear the Minister’s views on that.
	In practice, the effort reductions have had little impact on the nephrops fleet as Northern Ireland has made full use of the facility to buy back all the effort we need through the adoption of highly selective fishing gears. In these circumstances, it is no wonder that for the past two winters fishermen have had to resort to accessing hardship funds from Government and elsewhere. Although it is a devolved matter, the Minister will be aware that hardship funds have been given to our fishing fleet primarily because it has had some hard seasons, and periods when it has been unable to fish at all. Last year there was such a period from mid-September to February.
	It was exceptionally difficult and if the hardship fund had not been available, the fishermen would have been in deep trouble.
	What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister responsible for fisheries in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill? I understand that those talks have not yet taken place. Have there been any discussions with the fishing organisations—Dick James from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, and Mark Palmer who represents the under-10 metre boats in Portavogie and in Kilkeel and Ardglass? Those three organisations have a lot of knowledge, and they are concerned that their opinion has not been sought by the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland, so I would be keen to hear the Minister’s views.
	I am delighted that we are having this debate today. The Minister will represent the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We wish him well in Brussels. Being a glass-half-full person, I hope his discussions will be beneficial for the United Kingdom and will ensure that our fishermen do not have to access hardship funds through no choice of their own, but instead can fish the Irish sea and the seas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Angela Smith: I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which was a Government debate and is now a Backbench Business debate. I join other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). The second election campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby in May 1979 was my first election campaign as a party worker.
	I take this opportunity to add my tribute to the bravery of our fishermen and those who have lost their lives in an incredibly difficult and dangerous line of work, as numerous Members have said today. The men who work out at sea take huge risks, and too many of them and their families pay the ultimate price.
	We all appreciate just how important the fishing industry is to our country, but it is especially important to many of our coastal towns, so let me be clear. We in the Labour party believe that developing and maintaining sustainable fish stocks is not just essential for the marine environment, but is vital for the long-term health of our fishing industry. Labour believes that fishing is a public good which should be treated as such. That means that the Government have an important role in protecting the sustainability of both our fishing industry and the marine environment. We cannot divorce the economy from the environment and nowhere is that clearer than with fishing. Let me demonstrate the point: show me a series of declining fish stocks, and I will show you a declining coastal town.
	I grew up in Grimsby, as many people in this Chamber know. As a girl, I witnessed a bustling fishing port—the biggest in the world at that time—and I clearly remember being taken down to the dockside by my father. I remember the numerous trawlers, the sense of busyness, the sense of pride of workers doing something they
	knew was incredibly important. But I remember, too, the decline as the years of plenty were replaced by years of what looked like famine. The devastation that it wreaked, both economically and socially, was vivid, with areas around the docks, such as East Marsh, suffering disastrous consequences. To this day, East Marsh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby knows, is one of the most deprived wards in the country. And gone with the fish are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith road when I was young. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.
	As the daughter of a former Grimsby fisherman and someone who grew up in a coastal area, therefore, I fully realise the economic importance of activities related to the sea, fishing being a key aspect of all that. I absolutely believe that we need to learn our lessons. We need to understand that sustainable stocks go hand in hand with sustainable fishing and sustainable coastal communities.
	The British fishing fleet is now much diminished, but it is still an important source of economic activity and contributes many millions to the UK economy. In 2013, it still directly employed some 12,000 people with a fleet of 6,400 vessels, and it landed some 600,000 tonnes of fish, at a value of more than £700 million. Plymouth, for example, is one of the largest fishing ports in the country—Brixham being the biggest— landing annually some 11.6 million tonnes of fish worth in excess of £13.5 million. But it is not enough to reiterate the facts and figures. We need to secure our fishing industry by ensuring its sustainability, and we need to do that by respecting the fact that our fishing stocks are not just there to be plundered without any regard for their long-term survival. We need a plan to deliver both environmental and commercial fishing success.
	Of course, the most important tool at our disposal in developing and maintaining sustainable stocks is science—good, credible data that is rigorously collected and rigorously analysed to underpin good decision making. Without good science, it will be very difficult to achieve our goal of securing a long-term fishing industry that is sustainable both economically and environmentally, and an industry that can continue to support our vital coastal communities. So my first question to the Minister today is: how confident is he that the UK can contribute robust scientific data to the European debate about sustainable fishing stocks? Will the Minister inform the House about the impact of Government cuts on the resources available to develop a more robust scientific base to fisheries policy?
	If science is key to securing sustainability, we must also fully understand the importance of strengthening the contribution made to the industry by low-impact fishing practices, which are good not only for the environment but also for the long-term interests of our industry. As was evidenced in the debate about sea bass last week, we know that our hard-pressed coastal communities secure significant economic benefit from fishing practices that are also less damaging to the environment. As I pointed out, some 884,000 sea anglers in England directly contribute some £1.23 billion to the UK economy. Their activities support a £2.1 billion
	contribution to the UK economy and 23,600 jobs. So we need to ensure that our plan, working in concert with our EU colleagues, takes account of the need to deliver more low impact fishing practices, and that is the proper context for any debate about quota distribution.
	What then, is the Government’s approach to this issue? How prepared are the Government to incentivise the industry to make the switch to more sustainable practices? How hard are the Government prepared to argue in Europe for the conservation measures necessary to deliver sustainable stocks, particularly in relation to action to protect those all-important nursery areas and the spawning areas? How prepared are the Government to use Labour’s Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and the marine conservation zones enabled by that legislation, to help to deliver industrial and environmental sustainability? Labour is proud of its record on marine protection. Our Act offers a positive way forward, as it makes possible conservation measures, not just in relation to the 0 to 6-mile limit but also in relation to the 6 to 12-mile limit, because of course it gives the Marine Management Organisation the power to deliver new byelaws that relate not just to UK fishing vessels but to the vessels of all member states that have fishing rights in our waters.
	But Labour is not just proud of its record. We are also clear about our support for continued membership of the EU and the need for positive engagement with it. This is particularly important to fishing. The EU represents the world’s largest maritime territory and is key to delivering a sustainable future. Rather than turning our back on it, as some hon. Members would have us do, we need to be taking our arguments into Europe, making the case for meaningful implementation of fisheries reform, in order to deliver thriving fish stocks and thriving fishing communities. Is the Minister committed to meaningful engagement with our partners in the EU or would he take the route suggested by some of his colleagues and prefer to shout from the sidelines? Reform of the common fisheries policy must bring with it a determination to deliver on the key changes, which as we all know are primarily focused on more regionalisation of decision making, a requirement for quotas based on maximum sustainable yield by 2015 and a ban on discards.
	Maximum sustainable yields, as has been illustrated in the debate today, are a key tool for delivering a sustainable fishing future. They offer a way forward both in terms of recovering over-exploited stocks and securing their long-term future. However, it is also right that maximum sustainable yields be based on good science and good quality data, and that these data be correctly applied in the decision making process. This means adopting an approach that is rigorous but pragmatic; 2015 should be the assumed date for implementation of maximum sustainable yields, but we need to recognise that where the case is made scientifically for extending the time available to reach maximum sustainable yields, we should do so.
	Fishermen and environmentalists alike are keenly interested in this aspect of CFP and they deserve to know where the Government have got to in terms of implementation. So, will the Minister update the House on how he plans to approach the implementation of maximum sustainable yields? Transparency is the key. Where the 2015 deadline is supported by the Government,
	give us the evidence for the decision. Where flexibility on maximum sustainable yields is supported by the Government, again, give us the supporting evidence. Our hard-pressed fishing communities and those who are passionate about our marine environment deserve nothing less.
	Finally, there is the issue of discards. We know that the deadlines for implementation vary from 2015 for pelagic fisheries to 2016 to 2019 for demersal fisheries. We know that we need to deliver on this principle if we are to make real progress towards a sustainable fishing future, albeit we have had the demand and the argument made today for a more pragmatic approach to implementation. But we know too that, badly implemented, we run the risk of seeing quotas increased for those vessels that practise or have practised discarding, while those vessels that fish more selectively and hence more sustainably risk having their quotas cut in order to achieve maximum sustainable yields. Is the Minister prepared to argue for measures designed to avoid this undesirable and perverse consequence? Is he prepared to make the case for the adoption of more selective fishing practices by those vessels benefiting from quota uplift? In other words, is he determined to ensure that we do not sacrifice the principle of sustainability in an attempt to compensate those who have traditionally indulged in discarding? What will he do to ensure that the integrity of the ban is maintained?
	We believe that the interests of the marine environment go hand in hand with the best interests of the fishing industry and of our hard-pressed coastal communities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) pointed out, we need to develop stronger partnerships with the fishing industry to shape the transition to that more sustainable future. More than anything, we need to be able to use good scientific data to underpin our approach to delivering that future. I await the Minister’s responses to the questions raised with interest and once again thank the sponsoring Members for today’s debate.

George Eustice: I congratulate hon. Members and the members of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries on securing the debate and on obtaining the support of the Backbench Business Committee for it. I also acknowledge, as a number of other hon. Members have, the commitment to the fisheries debate over many years of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). Once again, it has been a spirited debate with many questions, and I will try to cover as many of those as I can.
	First, it is important to take this opportunity to remember the eight men who lost their lives at sea during the past year in incidents involving five vessels—the Eshcol, the Diamond, the Ronan Orla, the Barnacle 3 and the Ocean Way. The contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the importance of improving safety at sea was particularly powerful. We all recognise the difficult and dangerous work that fishermen do to bring food to our tables, and I know that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those men and offering sincere condolences to all the families and friends who have suffered loss.
	Many important points have been raised in today’s debate, and I shall try to cover as many as I can. This year’s December Fisheries Council will be particularly challenging, with Commission proposals for reductions in the quotas of most stocks, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. However, I aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities for our fishermen. The quotas set should be consistent with our objectives: they should be based on the best available scientific advice; they should aim to achieve maximum sustainable yield where possible; and they should help the industry with the transition to the discard ban.

Sheryll Murray: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: I will carry on, because I want to cover as many of the points that have been raised as possible, including many that she raised.
	In the run-up to the December Council, we have already secured successful outcomes in three major international negotiations on fishing opportunities this year. The outcome of the EU-Norway talks last week was particularly encouraging. The agreed increases in quotas—5% for North sea cod and 7% for haddock and plaice—show the benefits of responsible management. Some difficult decisions taken in previous years are now starting to pay dividends for the fishing industry in the North sea.
	I am also pleased that the EU secured a three-party north-east Atlantic mackerel agreement last month. That sustainable agreement will bring around £250 million to the UK. The EU also successfully negotiated an agreement with the Faroes this week. The result is a very good one for the UK, providing our fishermen with opportunities to catch a number of species in Faroese waters, including 817 tonnes of cod and haddock and 696 tonnes of saithe.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), mentioned crab allocations in the south-west. I can confirm that just today a swap agreement has been secured with Irish producer organisations that will enable our very important crab fishery in the far south-west to remain open until the end of the year.
	However, I recognise that there are challenges in other areas, particularly the south-west, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, and I have taken those into account when deciding our negotiating position. Let us be clear that we cannot increase quotas if the science does not support it. I do not believe that to do so would be in the long-term interests of our fishermen; if we fish unsustainably, we simply rob them of their tomorrow. If we want a long-term, viable industry, we must fish sustainably. However, while having science as our guiding principle, we have to ensure that we use the best and most up-to-date science available and take decisions that are right for the fish stocks and right for the fishing fleets that depend on them.
	Last Thursday I had a meeting with Commissioner Vella in Brussels to begin the negotiating process for the December Council. I made a number of key points on the science. First, we should use the most recent data available where they are relevant. In the south-west, in particular, there is a lot of evidence of a late recruitment of haddock this summer, which we want to be taken
	into account in the December Council. Secondly, when it comes to data-limited stocks, we oppose simply having an automatic, precautionary approach. We believe that we should make the best possible judgment with the data we have, rather than having arbitrary cuts, and we have made that point already to the Commission. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlighted, it is important to have what we call mixed fisheries analysis. There is no point in dramatically cutting the quota for one species if it is in a mixed fishery, because fishermen cannot avoid it and will therefore end up having to discard it. Finally, we want to ensure that account is taken of the increased use of more selective gears.
	I particularly welcome the progress that has been made so far in implementing the reformed common fisheries policy, especially in advancing regional fisheries management. The first part of the discard ban for the pelagic fisheries will come into force on 1 January 2015. That is a significant milestone in the new CFP. The new rules that will implement it were developed not in Brussels, but by regional groups of member states working together. I think that the new regionalised approach, as the hon. Member for St Ives noted, is working well. Rather than having top-down decisions from the Commission that the Council of Ministers must then try to mitigate and argue over, we are getting a multilateral agreement where member states with a shared interest in a fishery work through their differences and then take the solution to the Commission. We will shortly begin the work to prepare for the demersal discard ban in January 2016. The regional groups will meet early next summer to take those discussions forward, and in the next year we will issue a consultation to the industry so that we can take on board its views.
	I know that fisheries closures have been a prominent issue this year, particularly in the Bristol channel. As a number of Members have pointed out, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) made a forceful intervention in that regard. The point I would make is that the closures are a last-resort mechanism used to protect the long-term future of the fisheries industry. He asked whether I have raised the matter with the Marine Management Organisation. I can confirm that after he raised it me a month ago I had a meeting with the MMO to explore exactly what went wrong. It is going to set up a panel, which will include fisheries leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes asked why that had not yet progressed. It has been in transition to a new chief executive, but John Tuckett is now in place. I will take up the issue with him, because I want us to learn lessons.
	We must also recognise—I went through a number of these issues with the MMO—that managing quotas is a difficult task. The reality is that last year we had a very bad winter, so fishermen could not get out and catch their quotas. We then had an incredibly good summer, so the under-10 fleet, in particular, managed to catch its quota much more quickly than it normally does. Indeed, this is the first year we have had a problem with skate and ray quotas. In defence of the MMO, had it intervened earlier, that would have restricted the amount of quota that fishermen could fish over the summer. There is a fixed amount of quota, and we could not allow them to overfish it. I am sure that there are fishermen who
	would have said, “Now you’re making me go out and fish in November and December, but I could have caught the quota in the summer.” These are not easy issues.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon pointed out that the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation still had 100 tonnes of ray quota at the point at which the closure took place and wondered why that was. It turned out, when the figures came through, that 100 tonnes of quota was needed to cover overfishing that had already taken place in other parts of the fleet. He also mentioned a transfer that was agreed by the MMO from a Scottish producer organisation. We will want to look at that, but it has to be said that that was held by a Scottish producer organisation, not one in the west country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) proposed the idea of having compulsory log books for the under-10 fleet, which would obviously improve the speed at which we can get the data in, but I am not sure that it would be universally popular with the under-10s. The reason we do not require them to have compulsory electronic log books is that they claim it would be disproportionate to the impact they have.
	I will move on to some of the other points that were raised.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: I want to carry on, because there are many questions that I want to answer in the time available.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that ICES advice is sometimes behind that which we can get from fishermen. We have a mixture of information and data that will inform the recommendations for the December Council, as well as work done by the Endeavour, a fantastic survey vessel run by CEFAS that goes to the same areas each year in order to get reliable data. We also sometimes put observers on fishing vessels so that we can look at the actual catch they are getting in practice.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to delay implementation of MSY. The regulation requires us to implement it where possible in 2015 and everywhere by 2020, and that is exactly what we will do. We will implement it where we can by 2015. Where we cannot implement it, because the science does not allow us to, there is the possibility to delay until 2020.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) talked about haddock in the Celtic sea. There is a big cut of over 40% proposed for that. We are doing two things in that regard. In the summer I visited the fishing vessel of David Stevens in Newlyn, who has been doing some fantastic work, together with the MMO and CEFAS, on using more selective gears. That scientific advice has now been validated by the EU’s science committee, and we will be using it next week in the December Council. We also want to make more use of the most recent recruitment data we have.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the approach to data-limited stocks. As I said, we believe that we should make the best use we can of the data that we have. That will be particularly important for some species in the far south-west,
	notably monkfish, megrim and sole. In parts of the south-west, a roll-over is proposed, but there are some quite big proposed cuts in sole in the Bristol channel, and we shall be trying to mitigate some of the impacts of that.
	My hon. Friend mentioned CFP reform and whether we could remove access to our fleet. However, the UK also benefits from access in the 6-to-12-mile zone of countries such as France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and many of these agreements even pre-date the CFP, so the matter is not quite that straightforward.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the issue of nephrops. I met Northern Ireland fisheries representatives earlier this week, and I am meeting them again later today, so they are been well represented. Back in October, at one of our stakeholder meetings, I met Michelle O’Neill from the Northern Ireland Administration, and she will be present at the December Council next week.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and several others mentioned issues relating to the under-10 metre fleet. We are going to realign quotas, permanently, and that will give a significant uplift in quota to the under-10 fleet. We are about to put out a consultation on removing latent capacity from boats that have not been fishing. About half of them have not carried out any fishing activity at all, and we need to deal with that. A pilot has been run in Ramsgate to look at whether we could give longer-term quotas to some of the under-10 metre fleet. Earlier this year we consulted on whether the under-10 metre would want to leave the pool altogether and have the certainty of an annual quota. The fleet’s reaction to that proposal was mixed, and we have not yet made any final decisions on it. When we get into the new discard ban regime, there will be the potential for a quota uplift. We are looking at whether we can reflect the importance of the under- 10 metre fleet in making those decisions.
	The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) asked about the impact on ports and how they will cope with the discard ban. Two weeks ago, I met a whole load of representatives from the ports and we discussed some of these issues. We do have processing capacity to deal with some of the undersized fish, but there is often a logistical issue in transporting them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) invited me to the Plymouth marine laboratory. I attended a reception that the laboratory held a month ago, and I would be more than happy to visit it. DEFRA very much welcomes our partnership with it.
	The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referred to the role of the Scottish Government. I ought to explain what happens at the December Council. I think that we engage with the devolved Assemblies more than any other Department, and we recognise that every part of the UK has an important fisheries industry. At the Council, Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s fisheries Minister, attends all the meetings where we decide our negotiating strategy, all the bilateral meetings that we have with other Ministers, and the trilateral meeting that we have with the presidency and the Commission. We talk regularly about the position that we take as and when we change things. All the devolved Administrations are fully engaged in the approach that we take to the December Council.

Eilidh Whiteford: rose—

George Eustice: I want to carry on because I am conscious of the time.
	The hon. Member for St Ives asked about the roll-out of the discard ban. I think that fishermen sometimes forget about the various elements, and flexibilities, in the discard ban. If there is high survivability, fish can be put back. There is inter-species flexibility whereby someone who has, for instance, a lot of cod that they do not have quota for can count it as haddock. We start with the fish that define the fishery and finish with the smaller species. There is a de minimis exemption for people who cannot avoid doing anything else. We can borrow and bank quota from one year to the next.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) talked about the omnibus regulation. The legal position is clear: the new regulations take precedence over previous ones. The omnibus regulation was supposed to deal with that. As she said, there has been a bit of a problem in getting agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and that is now at the stage of trialogues.
	The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) asked about The Hague preference. We plan to invoke that in the usual way. We have also secured extra whiting from Norway through the EU-Norway deal. In recent years, we have diverted an extra 300 tonnes specifically to the north-east. The quota uplift that he mentioned will be finally decided in the December Council.
	I hope that I have covered as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. As I said, this is a challenging December Council. These meetings have a habit of going late into the night, although last year’s was an unusual exception. There are many challenging issues to address. I hope that I have managed to assure hon. Members that I am fully conscious of their concerns and will be going there to get the best possible deal we can for our fishing industry in the context of the science.

Margaret Ritchie: My colleagues and I were extremely grateful to secure this important debate and to have time made available for it in the Chamber. I thank those from across the parties who worked, through the Backbench Business Committee, to secure it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who have made major contributions to the fishing industry, and to fishing debates in this Chamber, over very many years. Their loss will be greatly felt in these debates in future, and I want to put that on the record.
	We have had a very productive, sometimes passionate debate across a range of issues to do with fisheries in all the various fishing ports represented by Members right across the United Kingdom. This is all about sustaining the fishing industry offshore and onshore, because both are interlinked and both make a major contribution to our own local economies. Many Members referred to the problems associated with landing obligations. I hope that during his negotiations the Minister will be able to apply pressure to ensure that the amendments proposed last week by an MEP from Northern Ireland
	are eventually implemented, because they will ease the impact of the discard ban and allow a greater level of flexibility.
	In my constituency, I have two fishing ports—Ardglass and Kilkeel. At the end of October, I was very grateful to the Minister for visiting to examine the work of the offshore fleet and the onshore industries. I well recall that we were picking prawns or trying to do some redress work to the prawns after they had been fished. In those two areas, fishing is at the heart of the local food industry and crucial to the local economy.
	We pay tribute to those who continue to risk their own safety every time they go out on a fishing boat. We must protect their right to make a living, because they do it in some of the most challenging weather conditions. The weather can have an impact on the number of days that they can go out to sea. I know from my own local experience that the Fishermen’s Mission played a major role in trying to secure and provide the necessary financial help to beleaguered fishermen.
	I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has a particular expertise in the fishing industry and serves with me on the EFRA Committee. She knows full well the risks that are associated with the fishing industry, and we all empathise with her in her loss.
	I thank all Members who have spoken with such clarity, sense and purpose about the need to safeguard our fishing industry across these islands. There are different factors, considerations and emphases in each fishery. There are issues to do with the MMO, maximum sustainable yield, the reallocation of quotas, and The Hague preference. However, a strong common thread unites us all in our desire to maintain a strong, sustainable fishery and to ensure that we get a positive outcome from the Minister’s negotiations next week.
	I was very much taken by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said in pointing out that there must be collaboration between fishermen and those involved in the science. In my experience and that of the fishermen I work with, it is clear that the fishermen themselves know much more about what is in the sea than the scientists do. That has been borne out by today’s comments by many Members from various parties. Too often the fishermen are not listened to. My message on behalf of all Members who have spoken is: please listen to what the fishermen have to say about the impact of the current climate on fishing. A compelling case has been made.
	As other Members have said, the industry has done a lot to improve gear practices and techniques to meet new regulations and limits. That has been the case in my own constituency and across Northern Ireland. The industry deserves credit for that. The Minister has seen for himself examples of those gears, which have been very much in the vanguard of the fishing industry and are innovative. Just as in previous years, fishing negotiations are vital in securing the future course of the industry.
	On the challenges faced in Northern Ireland, nephrops, which are so vital to the industry, remain the primary focus of our attention. I am glad that the Minister referred to that. The catch limit for the species was
	announced after the Commission published its total allowable catches on 28 October, as there was a delay in making sufficient stock data available. Once again, there is a significant cut in the TAC limit for nephrops. The TAC limits for area 7 nephrops have previously—this happened last year—been increased in response to Spain and France underutilising quotas, which protects countries such as the UK and Ireland with a full quota intake. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the priorities of the UK, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government have been aligned regarding what is best in terms of quota requirements for a sustainable fishery in the Irish sea. I hope that will continue and that the Minister’s colleagues in other countries will listen to that in the negotiations. The same logic should apply this year, as the proposed cut in nephrops would be extremely damaging. I urge the Minister to take that on board and share the message at the meeting.
	There remains no directed Irish sea cod fishery, and the industry, with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, continues to work positively in that area and agreed to relaunch the fisheries science partnership early in 2015. It will also begin a large-scale cod-tagging project and re-evaluate the assessment model of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, to make the best possible assessment of cod stock levels. It is hoped that the Commission, as indicated, will not pursue further effort reductions, in order to allow a focus on more important issues related to quota limits. I would like clarification in writing from the Minister as to why a cut to the TAC limit has been proposed when the Commission seems to have paused the long-term cod plan by not determinedly pursuing further reductions in efforts or days at sea. The TAC limit will simply lead to more unnecessary discards as part of the nephrop by-catch.
	Thankfully, previous effort reduction has had a limited impact on the nephrop fleet, as Northern Ireland has made full use of the facility to buy back all the effort we need through the adoption of highly selective gears. However, it must be noted that the gear modifications have in many cases led to a loss of valuable white fish by-catch, putting further pressure on fleets. I mentioned discards earlier, and they have been at the centre of the reform of the common fisheries policy.
	If there is one message that the Minister can take with him to Brussels next week it is that those Members who have spoken today clearly want to see proper regionalisation and decentralisation underpinning a sustainable fishery. If that can be done, we would be very pleased.
	Once again, I thank all Members who have spoken. I wish the Minister a fair wind—to use a nautical phrase—in his negotiations. We look forward to a successful outcome, notwithstanding the challenges he faces in negotiating on behalf of our fishermen, including on the issue of landing obligations for pelagic and demersal fishermen, the whole area of discards and the need for further decentralisation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the fishing industry.

Ukraine (UK Relations with Russia)

John Whittingdale: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered Ukraine and UK relations with Russia.
	May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold this debate this afternoon? I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who changed his diary so that he could respond to the debate.
	Some might think that events in Ukraine have calmed down and that there is no longer the same conflict raging as a few weeks ago, as there is not nearly as much coverage of it in our own media. It has been superseded by events in the middle east and the threat from Ebola in west Africa, but the truth is that the situation in Ukraine is no better. It dominated a large part of the recent discussion at the G20, and the war, which has now been raging for several months, has led to more and more people being killed every day. Therefore, it is absolutely right that this House should debate the events in Ukraine and their consequences for our own relations with Russia.
	I should perhaps start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I chair the all-party British-Ukraine group and I have received support from the British Ukrainian Society in that capacity.
	It is difficult to believe that it was only a year ago that we saw the start of what has become known as the revolution of dignity. On 21 November 2013, after many months of negotiation on Ukraine signing the European Union association agreement, it was announced that it would not actually happen. That is what proved to be the catalyst for the protests, which became known as Euromaidan. The protests may have been sparked by that announcement, but they were not actually about the EU as such; they were, I think, much more about the overwhelming feeling of the people that they could no longer tolerate a corrupt and discredited Government who had sent a clear signal that, instead of moving closer to western values and the freedoms we uphold, they were turning in the opposite direction and moving closer to Russia.
	Over the next few days, the numbers grew, and on 8 December—its anniversary was only a few days ago— 1 million people came out across Ukraine in the march of the million. They converged in Independence square in particular, and the Lenin monument was toppled. Today is the first anniversary of when the Berkut riot police first tried to attack the Maidan and the Ukrainian people came out in the middle of the night to resist the attack and defend the protesters.
	It had been a peaceful protest by hundreds of thousands of people, but during the following weeks the protesters suffered beatings, disappearances and shootings. I want to take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to those who are now called the Heavenly Hundred, the activists who died in January and February in the Maidan. Like the Minister, I had a meeting yesterday with Vitali Klitschko, who is now the mayor of Kiev. He talked about the crimes committed against those people in Kiev and the fact that they still have not received any
	justice: nobody has been arrested for or convicted of those crimes. There is no question but that the people of Ukraine still want justice, and they look to their new Government to try to obtain it. I hope that they will concentrate on that, because the crimes that took place there were too great for no one to be held responsible for them.
	Following the Euromaidan protest, events deteriorated. First, there was the Russian intervention in Crimea. The Russians already had a military presence at the naval base in Crimea, but there was then the illegal occupation and annexation of the entire Crimea. That was followed by the so-called referendum, which upheld no democratic standards whatever and was entirely bogus.
	Since then, the situation in Crimea has got worse. We know that large-scale violations of human rights are taking place there. Both pro-Ukrainian activists and particularly Crimean Tatar activists have been persecuted, and a large number of them have disappeared. At the same time, there has been a large increase in the Russian military presence. We understand that some 50,000 Russian troops have moved into Crimea, with Iskander tactical missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and can reach Romania and Hungary.
	The completely unacceptable situation in Crimea led to the first imposition of sanctions. Since then, attention has obviously focused on what is happening in eastern Ukraine.

Chris Bryant: I am terribly sorry not to have been in the Chamber for the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I will have an opportunity to read it tomorrow.
	One of the most remarkable things during the past year, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was when President Putin said that, for Russians, Crimea was as sacred as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Does that not show that there is certainly a tinge of madness in what is going on in the Kremlin?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is also an honourable friend, because I had intended to mention that. He is absolutely right that President Putin recently made a speech in which he referred to the sacral nature—I think he used that word—of Crimea to the Russian people because Prince Vladimir had been christened there. That all occurred before the present state of Russia emerged, so to seek to justify an entirely illegal occupation and the subsequent oppression of both the Ukrainian population in Crimea and the Tatar population seems to me wholly ridiculous. I must say that I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis.

Edward Leigh: I obviously do not want to inflate President Putin’s ridiculous comments, but the west has a slight problem. Crimea was part of Russia from the end of the 18th century. It is heavily dominated by ethnic Russian speakers who wish to be part of Russia. It was given to Ukraine by a diktat of Khrushchev in 1956. Unfortunately, whatever one may think of President Putin, the Russians in Crimea have some right to self-determination.

John Whittingdale: I would not disagree with what my hon. Friend has said. However, in whatever circumstances it occurred, Crimea became part of the sovereign territory
	of Ukraine, as has been recognised since the war by all legal bodies. Indeed, it was accepted by Russia, which signed up to international agreements recognising that fact.
	The wishes of the Russian-speaking community in Crimea are very unclear. Opinion polls taken before the Russian intervention showed that although a large number of people were Russian speakers and therefore different from Ukrainian speakers, the majority of the population nevertheless wanted Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. It is not at all clear that before the recent events in Crimea a majority wanted to join the Russian Federation. Certainly the attempts by the Russians to demonstrate that through what, as I have said, was an entirely bogus referendum are unconvincing. The argument applies most strongly in Crimea but in eastern Ukraine too. There are people whose first language is Russian and who feel a close association with Russia, but that does not necessarily mean that they want to leave Ukraine and become part of the Russian Federation.

John Woodcock: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On his latter point, does he agree that the worst thing we in the UK could do would be to use that argument, or say, “Well, we’ve provoked Russia by talking about expanding the EU, and we have taken NATO up to its borders”? That would in some way excuse Russia’s actions and promote the myth—which emanates from the Kremlin—that the situation is somehow our fault rather than squarely down to Russia’s completely unacceptable aggression.

John Whittingdale: I will say a little more along those lines, but I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The idea that what has happened has been somehow at the instigation of the west and America ignores the fact that the people of Ukraine have the right to choose their future. They have overwhelmingly demonstrated—most recently in parliamentary elections, which I want to speak a little about—that they see their future as moving closer to the west and to Europe, and they do not wish to move away from that and back in the direction of Russia. We must respect their right to make that choice.
	At the moment, the greatest violence is taking place in eastern Ukraine, and a war is going on in what is known as the Donbas region. There are violations of the Minsk accords every day. Civilian areas are being shelled, there are shootings, and an extremely fierce battle has been raging over several days and weeks for Donetsk airport, where despite the Russians deploying some of their best troops—the Spetsnaz—we understand that they have suffered heavier casualties and the Ukrainians have managed to repel them.
	We are told by the Russians that there are no Russian troops in that part of Ukraine, but we know that there are regular movements of military vehicles across the border, and we understand that anything up to 10,000 regular Russian troops are in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the tens of thousands lined up along the border. So-called humanitarian convoys regularly cross into eastern Ukraine. The Red Cross or international observers have not been permitted to inspect those humanitarian white lorries, and local reports state that the most recent humanitarian convoys have contained ammunition.
	The battle is fierce and has resulted in heavy casualties. In the summer a strong tank battle resulted in something like 70% of Ukrainian armour being destroyed by Russian forces. President Poroshenko has said that at the latest count, 1,250 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed and 3,000 injured, but casualties have not been only on the Ukrainian side.

Julian Lewis: Unpleasant though the alternatives are, given that Russia will clearly not allow pro-Russian forces in the east of the country to be militarily defeated, which is the least worse of these two outcomes? Either those areas are allowed to become relatively autonomous, or the situation is fought to a military finish, the only outcome of which—given that the west will not intervene militarily—would be Russian occupation of the whole country.

John Whittingdale: I will come on to what we need to do to respond to the Russian intervention. To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend that we need political reform, but it should not only be about the two regions in Donbas. If he will forgive me, I will continue my current theme but I promise I will come back to that.
	I want to talk not only about the fighting that is taking place in Ukraine, but about the massive abuse of human rights. We have Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers in eastern Ukraine, but confidence that they can monitor to the desirable extent is limited. I have heard criticism that they have been unable to carry out proper monitoring of the situation.
	There has been a massive population displacement, from both Crimea and Donbas—something like 1.5 million people have been displaced, and that may well be an underestimate. Hostages have been taken. Nadiya Savchenko, the Ukrainian servicewoman who was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament, is being held in Russia. Wearing my other hat as Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I should mention that we are conscious that Oleg Sentsov, a distinguished Ukrainian film director, was abducted and is being held in Moscow. With my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I attended a conference last week of the Council of Europe to discuss media freedom and the importance of the protection of journalists. We heard about two journalists who are being held hostage. There have also been a number of casualties among journalists.
	If we listen to and watch Russian media, we get a completely different picture. There is no account of that whatever. The Russian propaganda machine is insistent that the Kiev Government are a bunch of fascist gangsters who have been imposed on the population. The Russians make regular claims of abuses by Ukrainian troops, and often produce photographs of bodies—it later becomes apparent that the photographs were taken during other conflicts many years ago.
	Perhaps the most outrageous Russian media manipulation took place after the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17. There was overwhelming evidence, which is now widely recognised throughout the western world, that the airliner was shot down by Russian separatists using a surface-to-air missile that they had managed to obtain. Despite that, Russian media initially told us that the aircraft had been shot down by the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians had
	mistaken it for President Putin’s plane and were trying to shoot him down. Another claim was that the incident was a plot dreamt up by the west, which had flown an airliner full of dead bodies over Ukraine that could then be brought down to discredit the Russian separatists. Even this week, pictures have been produced in Russian media claiming to show a jet fighter that shot the plane down.
	Despite the fact that those pictures were obviously faked, the concern is that a huge number of people believed the story. A substantial proportion of the Russian population—the majority—are convinced it is true. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of countering that propaganda, which he gave me when I raised the matter with him after the statement on the G20. He said that President Obama had also recognised the need to counter Russian propaganda. I welcome the launch in this country of Ukraine Today, an English-language channel that will try to set out events accurately. I hope we and the Ukrainians do what we can to increase our efforts to get out the truth of what is happening. I welcome the intention of the new Ukrainian Government to set up a national public service broadcaster, which they have suggested could be modelled on the principle of the BBC.
	What do we need to do to put pressure on Russia, and make it clear that its behaviour is unacceptable and that there must be penalties? Sanctions were first imposed after the annexation of Crimea and there has been a gradual escalation since then. Many people say that sanctions are pointless and have no effect, but they clearly are having a significant effect on the Russian economy. There has been a sharp downward revision in its prospects for growth, and they have affected the Russian currency and the Russian stock market. In my view, we need to do more. I would like to see a strengthening of sanctions. I recognise that that requires international agreement. The Minister and the Prime Minister have been at the forefront in pressing for the strongest response from the international community, but I have been alarmed by reports that some have been suggesting that perhaps we can now begin to relax sanctions. I hope the Minister can reassure me that we will make the case as strongly as possible that there is no justification to relaxing sanctions. If the current destabilisation continues, there may even be a case for strengthening sanctions still further.

Roger Gale: In January, the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will seek the reinstatement of its voting rights and the renewal of its credentials. There is a grave danger that some countries in the Council of Europe—possibly Germany, France or Greece—may vote to restore those rights. Is this not absolutely the wrong time to send the signal that what has been done by Russia is actually all right and there is no need for further sanctions?

John Whittingdale: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have not always been the biggest fan of the European convention on human rights, for other reasons. Nevertheless, membership of the Council of Europe requires one to subscribe to the basic conditions of human rights. Russia is so far outside meeting those
	standards that it would be wholly ridiculous to suggest that we should now reinstate its voting rights in the Council.

Edward Leigh: I, too, am a member of the Council of Europe. I personally think there is no real possibility of us voting to restore Russia’s voting rights, but I would be opposed to kicking Russia out of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is a parliamentary union that often involves states we do not agree with, but with which we may achieve some movement. It may be a forlorn hope, but jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.

John Whittingdale: That is very much my view too. We have to keep talking to Russians. I will come on to say something about that, and we should take advantage of forums, but the Council of Europe represents certain values. At the moment, Russia does not appear to subscribe to those values.

Chris Bryant: There were people who advanced that argument in relation to Fiji, but when we threw Fiji out of the Commonwealth it eventually—quite recently—returned to democracy.

John Whittingdale: These are discussions that will no doubt take place in the Council of Europe. There is not a complete contradiction between the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North Thanet. The issue of voting rights is currently on the table.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On my hon. Friend’s previous point about sanctions, there is no doubt that if the Russians were to take further military action on any scale in Ukraine we should increase the sanctions regime. There are two areas on which we would need to increase sanctions: anything that could be regarded as military supplies, including French warships; and oil and energy, which would mean that our German friends would suffer considerably as the largest importers of Ukrainian oil and, in particular, gas. Do we not need to try to get all our European allies on board to make the sanctions regime work?

John Whittingdale: Clearly we do. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point, but my understanding is that we have been very active in pressing the case and I hope we will continue to do so. My hon. Friend refers to the possibility of having to strengthen sanctions in the future. My one concern—I hope it is misplaced, but I fear there is a reason for it to be taken seriously—is whether Russia might seek to move beyond eastern Ukraine and establish the land link between eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and at the same time acquire a seaport at Mariupol. There have been suggestions that that is in the Russian mind, and there is heavy troop build-up that might support the idea, but whether it happens we must wait to see. We must make it clear, however, that were it to take place, there would be severe consequences.

Gerald Howarth: I am sorry I was not here for the opening of my hon. Friend’s remarks. He is absolutely right about the risk of Russia’s seeking to annex land giving them a land link to Crimea.
	I cannot emphasise strongly enough to him and the House, as I have been warning for months, that this is Russia’s intention. Does he agree that this is not just a remote prospect, but a key component of Russia’s plans? Putin’s plan is to acquire a land link with Crimea and possibly then to link up with Transnistria, and leave Kiev and the bulk of Ukraine as a rump for the EU.

John Whittingdale: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I gently remind him that opening remarks in a Back Bench debate are supposed to be 10 to 15 minutes. He has now been speaking for 25 minutes, although I realise he has been pulled into different areas by interventions. Members who wish to speak and would not like to be under a time limit should bear it in mind that the debate will have to end promptly at 5 o’clock. I hope he will concentrate on making his points and concluding his speech.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been tempted by my hon. Friends. As you point out, the debate runs until 5 o’clock, so I hope there will be time for everyone to speak.
	Moving on rapidly, I want to talk about the economic challenges facing Ukraine, which is an area where I think we can do a lot more. The challenges are considerable. There has been a massive currency depreciation, the economy is likely to shrink for the third year in a row, and about 20% of production capacity in eastern Ukraine has essentially been lost. The immediate challenge is the winter. It is now 0° in Kiev; a few days ago, it was minus 15°, and obviously demand for energy will be high. Ukrainians are prepared to accept sacrifices—they told me, “We will take cold showers”—but it is important that the energy supply is there, and I am reassured that gas reserves have been increased and that the gas supply has now been reversed from Europe back into Ukraine.
	What Ukraine needs, however, is investment. Yesterday, I chaired a session of the Adam Smith Ukrainian investment conference where we heard from businessmen that they wished to invest but needed the confidence to do so. There is still concern about the level of corruption, which is one of the greatest challenges facing the country. I want to make two, related suggestions that I hope the Government will consider. The first comes from the British-Ukrainian chamber of commerce, which is pressing for a political risk insurance scheme to be established. The World Bank already has the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, but it is limited in what support it can offer Ukraine, so the chamber of commerce has suggested that there be a special fund to provide political and conflict risk insurance.
	Related to that, the Federation of Employers of Ukraine is assembling a private guarantee fund, and there are calls for a new Marshall plan for Ukraine, which I understand is getting support from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the French Government and America. So there are things we could be doing to increase the confidence of western investors that it is safe to invest in Ukraine.

Roger Gale: I rise to intervene at the risk of infuriating you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope it will be taken on board that my hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way.
	It is not just Mayor Klitschko’s Kiev that will need help through the winter, but the whole of Ukraine. If the present and only legitimate Government are to survive, do we not need to move immediately to give whatever support we can to help the Government survive through the winter and into the new year?

John Whittingdale: The challenges of the next few months, through the winter, are substantial, but hopefully the prospects will improve if they can get through it. I was encouraged yesterday that Vitali Klitschko seemed to think they were well placed to resist the problems of severe winter weather, but obviously it will be a challenge.
	The real key to the future of Ukraine—this is the message we hear from every Ukrainian—is that there has to be serious reform and it has to take place quickly. It is essential that measures are put in place to prevent corruption, to make changes to political institutions and also to bring about devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about semi-autonomous status; I would not go that far, but it is certainly desirable to devolve power and give greater responsibility to all the regions of Ukraine and to more local institutions.
	I am encouraged in that I think the new Government under President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk are determined to make the changes and they have brought in as Ministers people with real expertise, some of whom have come from different countries. We have an American-born Ukrainian Finance Minister and there is an Estonian in the Government. That, I think, sends the message that wherever the expertise lies, the Government will take advantage of it.
	Perhaps even more encouraging were the recent elections to the Ukrainian Parliament in October. The Russians made out that that would lead to extremists coming in. Indeed, they even tried to announce that extremists had been elected, but when the results came out, they showed that Svoboda, the right-wing party that had been in the previous Ukrainian Parliament, did not meet the threshold, achieving only 4.7%; while the Communists achieved only 3.9%. What was elected was a coalition of three parties, which are all now western-leading, pro-European and working together.
	Perhaps most encouraging of all—I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the fact that the new Ukrainian Parliament includes a number of young people who have come out of civil society and academia. Such people said to me that they previously never thought it worth getting involved in politics because the whole system was corrupt. Now they have chosen to stand for election and they are determined to take forward the reform programme. Let me mention two of them for a specific reason: Svitlana Zalishchuk and Aleksei Ryabchyn. They are young Ukrainians who have been elected, and they are also John Smith fellows, and I want to pay tribute to the work of the John Smith fellowship—not just in Ukraine, but in a number of east European countries, where it is helping to give young, up-and-coming politicians the experience and
	the opportunity they need through the fellowship. It is now paying off, in that those people are being elected to help govern their country.
	I believe that we have a duty to try to help Ukraine in its political, constitutional and economic reform programme, and I very much hope that we will soon be able to ratify the European Union association agreement. Ten countries in Europe have already done so, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that. We have an obligation because we are signatories of the Budapest memorandum, which Ukrainians still feel strongly gives us an obligation to assist—not necessarily militarily, but at the very least to give all the help we can.
	As was said earlier, Ukraine is in the front line, but it does not stop there. President Putin talks repeatedly about “Novorossiya”, which extends the border to Moldova, Georgia and the Baltics. We know that Ukraine is where the test is at the moment, but what happens there will have huge implications for global security. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I look forward to hearing both Front-Bench team responses in due course.

Richard Ottaway: I apologise for not being able to stay for the winding-up speeches; I mean no disrespect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Minister.
	I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has said. The alarm bells are ringing here. Of all the international hot spots at the moment, this is probably the most dangerous and possibly the one that threatens the UK the most.
	It is interesting that Ukraine is helping to flag up Russia’s direction of travel. Much as the Chinese attitude towards Hong Kong flags up China’s current direction of travel, what is happening in Ukraine flags up where Russia is going. My main concern is that unless there is a breakthrough—it does not seem very likely at the moment—this will become a frozen conflict, which we will have to live with for a long time.
	Since the ceasefire was agreed on 5 September, more than 1,000 people have been killed. New talks were meant to start yesterday, but I believe that they will start tomorrow. Let us hope that we can then have a real ceasefire. The Russians are clearly breaking the old one. They are clearly sending in troops. They deny that, pointing to private militias over which they say they have no control, which is absolute piffle. Let me pick up a point that was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). It is feared that Mariupol will be the next target, so that the Russians can build a land corridor to Crimea along the south coast.
	The economic situation in Ukraine is dire. The country is in recession, there have been serious outflows of cash and there is a drain on the reserves. The manufacturing part of the country is in the disputed areas in the east, and it is beginning to look as though the Russian tactic is to target that aspect of the economy and bring about an economic meltdown that will destabilise Kiev. In May, the International Monetary Fund pledged $17 billion; $10 billion, in one form or another, was pledged by others, but is proving much harder to collect. Despite
	those funds, however, the situation is deteriorating. It is estimated that at least another $12 billion to $15 billion will be needed, and there is a big question mark over where it will come from and who will supply it. Moreover, it is clear that much more money is needed to pay for the defence of the country.
	All this is causing political tensions. Elections took place in October, and I think we were all pretty relieved about that, but the coalition is already beginning to look a little shaky. The House should send the message that coalitions can indeed be shaky, but together people can actually achieve something. I urge the members of the coalition to stay together and swallow their differences, because if the coalition were to fall apart now, it would be absolutely disastrous. It would send the wrong message, and would dampen the enthusiasm of those of us who are committed to supporting the country.
	The other piece of political advice that I would give the Ukrainians is that they must stay close to the European Union. Throughout all this—through thick and thin—it has always been the European Union that has stood by them. The EU is the only body that has been able to stand up to Russia. It was EU mediation that sorted out the gas supplies, it is the EU that is brokering the next ceasefire talks, and it is the EU that is imposing sanctions and maintaining them. As I look around the Chamber and see some of my more Eurosceptic colleagues, I feel that I should point out that the EU sometimes has its advantages and its values.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way? (Laughter.)

Richard Ottaway: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I would not object to being drawn on a lot of points, but I do not want to become involved in an argument with him about that particular issue. I do not think that the EU can be blamed for all this. There is much more to it in the history. Indeed, my hon. Friend has talked about the history himself.
	I believe that sanctions are the only action that Russia will understand. When they were first imposed, they were described as “pathetic” , but—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—they are working and proving effective, and they may yet be what brings Russia to the negotiating table.
	After the unexpected visit of Mr Hollande, the President of France, to meet President Putin at the airport—which rather surprised us all—Putin told reporters, “We need to resolve” the conflict, and said that Russia respected Ukraine’s territorial integrity and wanted to see it restored. Good for Mr Hollande, I say, but can we believe it, and do we think it will happen? I suppose, in Mr Putin’s mind, such matters often depend on whether it is the morning or the afternoon, such are his mood swings. The House will be interested to know that they also appeared to resolve the helicopter carriers dispute, with Mr Putin saying that France can keep them providing it returns the money, which is an interesting straw in the wind, and it remains to be seen whether France does return the money.
	More significant is the intervention of Angela Merkel who has made sweeping criticisms of Russia, and accused the Russians point-blank of creating problems. It is important to remember her background, as someone who comes from eastern Germany and who understands
	what it is like to be under Soviet occupation. After the G20 summit in Brisbane she warned that Russia’s ambitions stretched beyond Ukraine, which is a very serious accusation to make. She said that it is trying to make some Baltic states “economically and politically dependent.” She then went on to remind us all that article 5 of the NATO treaty applies to all allies, which is probably the most significant part of this, and reflects the concern being felt in Berlin at the moment about the developing situation. Of course, Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO so it has the umbrella of article 5, and the question for all of us is whether we could possibly defend Ukraine, and I am not sure we could, frankly, so I think we have to be very careful before we get too drawn into that debate.
	The Baltics have to be our priority. I think the Baltics are a red line for us all, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has more than once confirmed from the Dispatch Box that that is the position of the British Government. I also welcome the deployment that has taken place there, and I am sure that if the situation in the Baltics deteriorates further, provisional plans are in place.
	Over recent months we have seen 40 unusual aircraft intrusions into the region. The Russians are clearly testing response times, and they have been probing UK airspace, too, and I understand that right now the Royal Navy is keeping an eye on Russian warships doing exercises in the channel. The big question for us all now is whether we should be doing more on the defence side. That is something we will have to keep a close eye on.
	My fear is that the situation will get worse before it gets better. No less a person than former President Gorbachev said in an interview with Tass, the state-owned news agency:
	“Now there are once again signs of a cold war.”
	This process can, and must, be stopped. After all, we did it in the ’80s: we opted for de-escalation and the reunification of Germany, and back then the situation was a lot tougher than now, so we could do it again.
	This reflects the fact that there are serious tensions inside the Kremlin at the moment, and one often speculates about what on earth is going on there. There are clearly two camps. There is what is known as the Siloviki, those who have a background in security and/or the military, and there are the economic liberals who are concerned about the economic situation in Russia.
	That dispute inside the Kremlin will intensify with western isolation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, the Russian economy is now in freefall: the rouble is plummeting and the oil price is wreaking havoc with the Russian economy. What President Gorbachev did not say in his interview is that that is exactly what happened last time, and it may be that that brings Russia to the negotiating table—maybe Mr Putin’s conversation with President Hollande was not just a flippant remark, and maybe second thoughts are going on.
	Russia is clearly now flailing around. It is resorting to the old tactic of unpredictable testing of EU reactions by cancelling the South Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, which I suspect is more cover for economic weakness. That may force the EU to look more urgently
	for alternative gas supplies, which I think we would all welcome, even though it may well cause division inside the EU.
	We have to keep our resolve. We have to keep united and stand by Ukraine both in NATO and the European Union.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have been able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing the debate. He and I went to Ukraine about a month ago and visited the Prime Minister, Mr Yatsenyuk. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) when he says that the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious. I have used parallels before, and there are parallels with the German annexation of the Sudetenland. First, they caused trouble with their own German speakers, then they used that as a pretext to go in with military force. That is exactly what has happened with Ukraine. Let us see where this might go.

Edward Leigh: I must intervene. It is a grotesque insult to Russia, which suffered appallingly at the hands of the Nazis, to equate in any way the Russian Government, for all their faults, with the Nazis. That is just the sort of remark that fills the Russian people with absolute despair. They were raped and pillaged and there were 50 million dead. I hope that my hon. Friend is not making any kind of equation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Well, I’m afraid I am. Actually, if we look at what happened to the Russian people after the war, we see that they experienced significant suffering, just as some of the German people did during the war. I am just pointing out that what the Russians have done in Ukraine is just as unacceptable as what the German Nazis did during the war. As long as we understand that, we will all appreciate which way we should go forward.
	Relations between Ukraine and Russia obviously remain tense, and that is a concern for the UK and the wider world. It is encouraging that the situation seems to have improved in the past few days, but there are still reasons to be extremely worried about the stability of the region and the impact that the situation could have on the United Kingdom.
	As I said, I recently visited Ukraine with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and we met the Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. We met the head of defence and the American and British Ambassadors to Ukraine. We also met the leaders of four political parties. My visit to Ukraine, which took place during the summer, showed me in demonstrable form the dire situation that Ukraine has found itself in since the current round of tensions with Russia began. The former President Victor Yanukovych sent his commissars around businesses and absconded with several billion pounds when he fled to Russia. That added to Ukraine’s already parlous financial situation, leading to the devaluation of the hryvnia against the dollar, with the currency hitting a 10-year low. Naturally, that has made it more difficult for Ukraine to buy much-needed foreign goods.
	It seems that the situation in the region might have improved over the past few days, with the news that a ceasefire in the east of the country between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels seems to be holding, and with hopes of further talks in Belarus tomorrow. Let us hope that the day of silence called by President Poroshenko will hold, and offer real hope of a lasting truce, rather than simply being a lull before a new round of military action.
	It is welcome that Russia has resumed gas supplies to Ukraine after months of difficult talks. This will be a substantial help to Ukraine during the winter. The annexe to the House of Commons Library briefing shows just how important this is to Ukraine, as it imports 25.1 billion cubic metres of Russian gas. I know that the Ukrainian Prime Minister will welcome this development, as getting through the winter was precisely what he was concerned about when we spoke during my visit. When I asked him what would be the most appropriate assistance for the west to give, he shrugged his shoulders and suggested everything from military uniforms through to the most sophisticated weaponry to combat the supplies being provided to the rebels by Russia. We know that the west is not going to supply any such sophisticated weaponry. As if to emphasise his point, he said:
	“We have a very difficult winter to get through”.
	Additionally, we have seen reports that TB, hepatitis, HIV and AIDS are spreading largely unchecked as a result of fighting in eastern Ukraine, caused by a lack of medical supplies. Luhansk and Donetsk saw the most deaths from TB in Ukraine last year and the highest co-infection rates of HIV and TB. This is yet another reason why it is in Ukraine’s interest to normalise the situation, so that the people are not condemned to suffer from those illnesses.
	As I have said, the situation seems to have stabilised slightly. Reports of the ceasefire holding are much more encouraging than the reports we were receiving until recently which told of daily violations of the ceasefire. However, we must be open to the fact that relations between Russia and Ukraine remain tense. Ukraine is resolute against more land grabs by Russia. The Ukrainian Government are maintaining solidarity, as we heard, with their citizens in Crimea by continuing to supply them with food and water. The Prime Minister was most resolute that most Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine did not want to secede from Ukraine and be reunited with Russia, and that in the west of Ukraine there was almost 100% support for closer relations with Europe. Given that support for a united Ukraine, the Government are and should be committed to maintaining their territorial integrity, and we should support them in any way we can in that.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon has mentioned, those statements from the Ukrainian Prime Minister were exemplified by the recent elections in Ukraine in October, when the old Party of Regions did not even feature on the ballot paper, while the President’s, Prime Minister’s and the Mayor of Lviv’s parties received a combined 54.93% share of the votes cast. That was a vote in favour of a pro-European direction, and it shows a clear intention of the people of Ukraine that they favour closer links with Europe.
	However, Russia, has until now not been listening to the democratic results in Ukraine. The universal view we found in Ukraine was that Putin is not finished yet.
	So what is likely to happen? A minority thought he would carry out a big military offensive, including establishing a Mariupol corridor to supply Crimea. That is difficult in the winter because the barges cannot go across the Black sea. We were told that in such circumstances Ukrainians would defend themselves with whatever they had. However, as my hon. Friend said, we were also told that 70% of their tanks had already been taken out by the Russians. The majority view, and possibly the one to which I would subscribe, is that Putin will keep causing relatively minor trouble wherever he can in order to destabilise the whole country, with the aim of bringing about a failed state. At this point, the Americans and the EU would have to decide whether they wanted to bail Ukraine out. Many people think that Putin’s aim is to gain control of the whole of the north coast of the Black sea, including Odessa, and eventually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, move along to Transnistria in Moldova. Certainly, the Romanians and the Poles, in neighbouring states, are very alarmed by that prospect.
	The future of our bilateral relations depends on Putin’s strategy. Clearly, the illegal seizure of Crimea is sufficient rationale for Britain to lead Europe, along with the USA, in the implementation of strong sanctions. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, I alluded to the fact that if there were to be further military action along the lines I have indicated, for example, taking a Mariupol corridor, we would have to consider ratcheting up the sanctions regime further. As others have said in this debate, the sanctions have already worked, with a 40% devaluation of the rouble against the dollar, a plummeting stock exchange and the drying up of foreign investment, all of which is compounded by a falling oil price—it was below $64 a barrel yesterday. This has all pushed up the cost of Russian borrowing from just under 8% in December 2013 to 12% today, and has led to President Putin saying in his annual state of the nation address that Russia would go into recession in 2015, with the economy ministry predicting a contraction of 0.8% instead of the previous prediction of an increase in GDP of 1.2%.
	If tensions between Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the rest of the EU are to be reduced, we must develop a more intelligent relationship between all these players. We must recognise that deep within the Russian psyche is the perception that their hegemony is being encroached on by the west; the Russians’ fear is that if Ukraine integrates further with the EU, their geopolitical sphere of influence will diminish. Geopolitics is incredibly important to Russia, perhaps more important than economic success. That could be why, despite the deteriorating economy, Putin’s personal approval ratings are currently running at 80%.
	There are many areas where we could be co-operating with the Russians which we have simply had to close off. For example, we could co-operate in relation to the Islamic threat, as Russia faces a huge Islamic threat on its southern flank. There are many other areas on which we could be co-operating but are not able to do so at the moment.
	If it is in Russia’s interest to have economically stable countries on its border, we must continue to emphasise the benefits of that. For example, it would be able to form strong bilateral trade agreements to its mutual advantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for
	Croydon South has said, the alternative is for Europe to diversify its oil and gas supplies away from Russia, which would hit it badly, especially with the low oil price at the moment. Russia may have started looking east towards China to sell its oil and gas, but it will always need the European markets, technology and expertise.
	Closer economic co-operation between Russia and the EU was beginning to happen under Gorbachev, but it has since fallen off the cliff edge. We must try to reinstate that again. Improving economic relations and trying to convince the Russians that mutual economic success is more important than geopolitics will lead to better political and diplomatic relations between the UK, EU, Ukraine and Russia. After all, we are all Europeans at heart.
	Although things may be improving slightly between Ukraine and Russia, relations remain incredibly poor. There is concern that this improvement in the past week or so is simply a lull to allow both sides to regroup. It is in everyone’s interest to improve these relations and to achieve stability.
	To improve relations between Ukraine, the UK and Russia, we must remind the Russians that we are all Europeans and that, instead of suffering from sanctions, we could all enjoy much greater economic success by putting geopolitics to one side and co-operating. Allowing Ukraine to flourish, as Poland did, could be a huge benefit to Russia. We should be encouraging closer economic co-operation, which will in turn develop into closer political relations.

Edward Leigh: What we are witnessing over Ukraine is a clash between two systems of international relations: the western liberal system held up by the US, the UK and Europe versus the more traditional power politics epitomised by Russia. That was highlighted by a comment by the US Secretary of State, who said:
	“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in a 19th-century fashion”.
	With all due respect to Mr Kerry, Russia has, quite simply, proved him wrong. We in the west like to imagine that our liberal system is the universal way, but the reality is that traditional power politics is much more dominant in the rest of the world. I make no defence of that; I just make the comment. Although our own actions are coated in thick veneers of liberalism and democracy, to which we no doubt generally adhere, this idealistic terminology masks the reality that we ourselves deal with the world through old-fashioned power politics.
	For years, the EU, the US and the west generally have interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine in an effort to draw that country away from Russia and towards us—Ukraine has for three centuries been part of Russia. Russia has tried to counter those moves, and even though we might demonise Mr Putin, there is no conceivable leader of the Russian Federation who would not have done the same. The fact is that we are the liberal democrats and they are the strong men, but that is incidental to what is being done. We should also recall that Russia, Ukraine and other nations of the former
	Soviet Union do not enjoy the same advantages that we have enjoyed, so it is inherently unfair to judge them by the same yardstick.
	We know that the Whig narrative of history is a myth. Anyone who believes the myth of progress after Auschwitz and Hiroshima must be wearing blinkers. Look at those photographs of modern free women studying in the universities of Tehran and Kabul in the 1960s and 1970s and then witness their condition, rights and appalling position today. Our rights and freedoms do not just arise out of the primordial fundamental; they are contingent on certain circumstances. We in Britain are not destined to be a parliamentary democracy with a prosperous economy; it has taken centuries of slow and gradual development with often quite arbitrary situations that has allowed our tradition of parliamentary democracy to emerge.
	Seventy years of communism perverted the spirit of the people of the former Soviet Union and prevented them from developing the institutions, the habits and the traditions that we all too easily take for granted, whether here in the House or in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is precisely why we traditionalists and Conservatives have been so defensive and circumspect when it comes to altering the traditions of this House or the British constitution. To alter, change or abolish one portion thereof, no matter how small, may have numerous unintended and unforeseen consequences, with the potential to wreak havoc on the rights and freedoms that we have inherited from those who came before us.
	Taking this into account, we must recognise how important it is to understand the Russian mentality. Russia suffered for decades under communist rule. Russia has experienced at first hand the future that we are marching towards and rejected it. We here all believe we are wonderful, enlightened, modern liberals, and of course we have totally and wholeheartedly rejected nationalism and all those other nasty things, but the Russians feel very keenly that they have been wronged. They were allowed to sit at the western table only when they were weak and ineffective under Yeltsin as their economy was plundered by criminal oligarchs.
	Moscow has definite security concerns regarding NATO expansion in Ukraine. Likewise, I am sure we would have had definite security concerns had Ireland or Belgium considered joining the Warsaw pact. The US would have similar concerns if, for instance, Mexico had tried to join some Russian sphere of influence.

Bob Stewart: I want to back up my hon. Friend’s point. Twenty years ago, as the chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I repeatedly sent in papers saying that the expansion of NATO eastwards was poking the Russians in the eye, when we consider their history. That is exactly what we have done.

Edward Leigh: I agree.
	Might it not be worth at least attempting to see things from the perspective of others and the perspective of most Russian people? Is it not wise to try to understand how we and our actions are perceived by them? How can we possibly make correct decisions about what to do if we have zero understanding of what makes other people tick? That is especially true if those people have extraordinarily different histories, not least the fact, as
	I said before, that Russian people suffered the most appalling tribulations as a result of invasion by the west within the lifetime of many Russian people.

Gerald Howarth: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but he is trying to paint Russia as a victim. What would he say about what Stalin did to the people of Ukraine? He starved them to death when that country was the bread basket of the Soviet Union. What about the Ukrainian people who have that deeply seared in their memory? Are they not victims too?

Edward Leigh: Absolutely right. I agree entirely with that. I am not pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian. I fully accept the appalling suffering of the Ukrainian people, particularly under Stalin, and the dreadful suffering that they experienced from the Nazi invasion. I am not making that point; I am simply trying to explain that the Russians have a point of view, and if we are to do the right thing, we must understand that. We may not agree with it. Nothing I say militates against a free, independent and prosperous Ukraine.
	We have to wake up to the reality that many Russians think, act and feel differently from us, and that no amount of bullying on our part with sanctions will turn them into western liberals with our point of view. Not all Russians agree with what I am saying, but many do. Many take quite the opposite point of view from us. We in the west seem to have lost our critical faculty. We make the fatal error of believing our own propaganda and, worse, expecting other people to believe it too. None of us here believes Mr Putin’s propaganda. I do not support him or believe in him or defend him to the remotest degree, but why do we expect people in Russia, the Crimea or eastern Ukraine to believe our propaganda? They judge us not by our words but by our actions. Why should they do otherwise? Look at our immediate recognition of the seizure of power in Kiev this past February, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I make no defence whatever of the previous corrupt Ukrainian regime, but we preach respect for the law then completely disregard the Ukrainian constitution, article 111 of which lays out specific provisions for the impeachment and replacement of the President of Ukraine. These provisions were not applied, thus a succession, in the view of many, is at best irregular, at worst unconstitutional.
	Let us remember 1993 in Russia. Yeltsin unconstitutionally dissolved the Duma and sent in tanks against a democratically Parliament, and the west backed him. What may have been the beginnings of a Russian idea of parliamentary sovereignty and the accountability of the Executive were nipped in the bud, with western powers nodding approvingly. It is all very well to pronounce the sacred inviolability of the borders of sovereign states, but when one does so, having undermined the borders of sovereign states as we did in Serbia, which many Russians point to, when we went to war over Kosovo, whose independence we now recognise, in their view it begins to look hypocritical.
	Russia, we know, is certainly involved in the supply of weapons to the rebels in eastern Ukraine, but in Kosovo NATO forces—this is often mentioned in Russia—effectively acted as the air force for the Kosovan Liberation Army. In the war against Serbia, NATO forces bombed hospitals—this is what many Russians say—bridges,
	journalists’ offices, public markets and even the Chinese embassy. Russia has done wrong, but it has not done what the Nazis did in Ukraine.
	Economically speaking, we are continually arguing for globalisation, the integration of world economies, free trade, allowing everyone to grow in prosperity together—all things that I and everyone else speaking in this debate agree with. Why, then, are we allowing politics to interfere with our economic links to Russia, which are very strong, and to frustrate Russia’s further integration in the world economy? Those who seek to undermine Mr Putin would be much wiser to seek to strengthen these links, to incorporate Russia much more closely in the wider world. Surely that would strike more deeply at the heart of Mr Putin’s separatist way of doing things, drawing the Russian people in rather than casting them out. Instead, we are playing into Mr Putin’s hands. Our cack-handed sanctions allow him to portray us as anti-Russian, thus further legitimising his position as the defender of Mother Russia.
	Global economic recovery, we know, is extraordinarily precarious. Provoking crises with Russia risks unsettling the recovery, not just that of Russia but ours. With all due respect to the Ukraine, for Britons is it worth this possibility? One need not add BP’s significant investment in Russia, the billions of pounds of Russian money involved in the City of London, and European reliance on Russian energy. We must always remember that the existential threat to us is global Islamic jihadism, and Russia is an absolute crucial ally in that. Why put that at risk? Particularly at this time of commemoration, when we are looking back to the events of a hundred years ago, we must force ourselves to learn the lessons of 1914. Does anyone really think that the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne was worth the suicide of Europe? We do not want to sleepwalk into a war, the likes of which we cannot imagine.
	Ukraine is a beautiful country. It has deep traditions, a proud culture, a long history. We should wish the Ukrainians all the best in their journey as an independent people. But it is obvious, I am afraid, that there is no intrinsic British interest in Ukraine. Ukrainian relations with Russia, Belarus, Poland and others are for Ukrainians to sort out, no matter how divided a people they are, and they are divided. But there is unequivocally no single shred of a reason why the United Kingdom should risk war over Ukraine. Our priority should be de-escalation, and then facilitating dialogue between the warring Ukrainian factions and between Ukraine, Russia and the west. We need to foster a breathing space in which Ukraine can make suitable constitutional reforms to allow for autonomy, as has been said. We should not put the global economy at risk, and we certainly should not risk a European war—1914 is ever present.
	Perhaps I have been a bit too harsh on liberal democracy. Let me finish on a positive note. I am profoundly pro-life and anti-war. I want, if it is not too naive a thing to say, for Ukraine to be at peace. I really believe in this noble theme.
	I believe that there is a role for Britain and France, in particular. We have no historical axe to grind. Unlike Poland and the Baltic states, we have not been invaded or suppressed by the Russians. As for the Russians, they still harbour some justifiable historical fear of German expansionism, and with some reason today in economic terms. Unlike some Americans currently in power, we
	also have a sense of history. We recall from Woodrow Wilson’s time that good intentions are not always enough and can lead to war. We know that western Ukraine around Lviv was never part of Russia; it was first part of Austria-Hungary and then Poland. We know that in western Ukraine they 100% want to be part of Europe. However, many of us are also sensibly sceptical about the expansion of NATO and the EU into former Russian lands.
	I believe that a solution can be brokered, and I believe that we can play a role. We must convince Russia that we have no intention of trying to detach Ukraine from Russian influence to bring it under our own. We want Ukraine to be what it should be: free; independent; not part of the Russian sphere of influence or the NATO or EU sphere of influence; and with a strong federal structure and home rule for the east. Why should we want to break the Russian economy? Why should we want to destroy Mr Putin? If he goes, we could get somebody far worse. No feasible Russian leader would ever accept the permanent loss of eastern Ukraine. Let us be an honest broker. Let peace be our watchword, not war without end.

Julian Lewis: It is 33 years since I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and it is a real pleasure to sit beside him in the Chamber today and listen to his very sensible remarks about a situation that might see him classified as a bit of a peacenik. [Interruption.] He snorts at the suggestion. However, the circumstances in which we met all those years ago were the depths of the cold war. We co-operated with our colleague Tony Kerpel and others sadly no longer alive, such as George Miller, to do everything we could to counter communist-inspired campaigns to undermine the defences of western Europe in general and NATO in particular. Therefore, I do not think that either of us has a track record of being soft on the Russians. Why is it, then, that without having compared notes, we both find ourselves today urging caution in this scenario?
	My hon. Friend concentrated on his historical analysis. I will concentrate on a rather simpler analytical approach. It boils down to one clear proposition: do not make military threats that cannot be or are not intended to be fulfilled. If military threats are made under those circumstances and they are not then fulfilled, there is a danger that your credibility is undermined for a time later, when you might have to issue a threat of retaliation that you intend to fulfil, and your adversary will not believe you mean it. That is how wars can start by mistake; because people do not take each other’s statements of position seriously.
	Why does that relate specifically to Ukraine? It relates to Ukraine because the danger of the approach we are taking toward Ukraine in our rhetoric is to lump that non-NATO country together with other countries that are members of NATO. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whom I congratulate on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented his case, that I agree entirely with his view of the condemnation-worthy activities that Russia is carrying out. However, I do not agree with saying that
	if Russia gets its way in Ukraine and in places such as Moldova and Georgia, then its next step will be to threaten the Baltic states, because we must not lump these things together.
	NATO membership must never be offered glibly, lightly, or without thought of the consequences. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) agrees. We must consider the consequences of offering NATO membership without a serious intent to apply article 5 in circumstances of potential war. We all know what article 5 means: if any NATO country is attacked, the attacker is automatically at war with all the other members of NATO.
	I never tire of making the point I am about to make. I have made it many times before and I am not going to be deterred from making it again; it is, indeed, a point about deterrence. In order for deterrence to work, it is not only necessary to show that if someone is attacked, the consequences—the retaliation—will be unacceptable; one must also show that it will be unavoidable. One must not give the potential aggressor any reason to gamble that he might be able to commit an act of aggression without facing the consequences.
	When countries came together to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the intention was precisely to remove that uncertainty, which had existed in the 1930s. Then Hitler was able to gamble, while picking off one country after another, that the western democracies would do nothing. In fact, he got away with it in several countries, in a succession of aggressive manoeuvres, but then picked on one country too many and ended up involved in a war with the United Kingdom—or the British empire, as it still was at the time—on which he did not originally wish to embark.
	By talking tough in military terms on the question of Ukraine, we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough suggested, in danger of avoiding the realities on the ground. As I have pointed out before, when Russia stood in control of the whole of central and eastern Europe, there were periods when one country after another tried to shake off the communist yoke. We saw it in East Germany in 1953; we saw it in Hungary in 1956; and I personally remember seeing it in Czechoslovakia when I was 16 years old in 1968. At that time, when Czechoslovakia seemed to have got out from under totalitarian control, I argued very strongly that we should offer it NATO membership in order to try to protect it. I realise now, because I am rather more experienced in the ways of the world, that that would have been a counsel of madness, because given our ability to protect the country that we would be promising to protect, the promise would have been totally lacking in credibility.
	It totally lacks credibility to suggest that countries such as Georgia and Ukraine should be offered NATO membership. Not many people are present in the Chamber today, but I predict—I hope I never have occasion to see this prediction come true—that if the country about which we were concerned were a NATO member, the Chamber would be packed, and that is because we would effectively be debating whether we were prepared to start world war three on behalf of that country, whichever NATO member it happened to be.
	I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Baltics must be our red line. I was very interested to hear my hon.
	and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham mention in an earlier intervention how, during his time in NATO, he had expressed concern about the extension of the NATO guarantee to so many countries from central and eastern Europe. I must say that I felt we were stretching the elastic to its limit when we extended that guarantee to the Baltic states, but I accept that we have a long history of trying to secure the independence of those states, stretching right back to the days of the Russian revolution itself. Therefore, there is a significant degree of credibility that we would be willing to resist militarily an invasion of the Baltic states, but that is not true in the case of Ukraine.
	I can imagine four principal scenarios in Ukraine. The first is that, in an ideal world, Russia will have a change of heart, or sanctions will work and she will withdraw and restore the pro-Russian areas of Ukraine to Kiev’s control. I think that a fairly unlikely outcome. The second scenario, which in my opinion would be the best, would be an agreed decision to create an autonomous area within Ukraine, comprising the pro-Russian elements and territories. The country could therefore continue as a political entity, but with a loose federal structure.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is talking about dividing up a sovereign nation. Surely it is a question of self-determination and up to the people of Ukraine to decide that.

Julian Lewis: Yes, in an ideal world it would be, but there is a slight problem with that scenario, namely that the Russians have the power to impose a solution and nobody else is willing to fight them to prevent them from doing so. That is the hard reality. We may not like the situation any more than we liked that in 1968 when Russia imposed its will with the crushing of the Prague spring; but I do not think anybody would suggest even now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it would have been right to provoke world war three at that time. In situations where we are up against people with a lot of power, we have to contain them until political affairs evolve gradually in the direction we want them to go.

Edward Leigh: indicated assent.

Julian Lewis: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
	Let me deal with the other two scenarios before drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The third scenario is a split. It would be either a de facto split, which is being referred to as a frozen conflict—in other words, the pro-Russian communities would end up in control of their areas, glaring at Kiev and vice versa—or a de jure split, which would obviously be a less satisfactory solution than an agreed decision to stay together with an appropriate amount of autonomy.
	Finally—this is the dread scenario, which really could happen—if we really were crazy enough to offer military assistance to Kiev and encourage it to think that there would be enough military supplies to enable it to overwhelm its adversaries in the pro-Russian parts of the country, it is an absolute certainty that Russia would respond militarily. In any conflict of that sort, Russia would prevail and it would not then be content to confine itself to the pro-Russian areas; it would invade and take over the whole country.
	It is what is colloquially called a no-brainer that if the Russians are determined—however wrongly, as my hon. Friends have variously suggested—not to let the pro-Russian provinces go, and they are not prepared to do so, the best outcome we can hope for is an agreed negotiation of autonomy for those areas. Such agreements are not unprecedented. It took us 38 years to reach some sort of agreement even in a province such as Northern Ireland, which was a rather less fraught or challenging situation than the one that we and the international community face in Ukraine.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to take part in this very important debate. I am surrounded by some of my closest political soul mates, but I suspect that my view is slightly different from theirs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on introducing the debate, but it is disappointing that a matter of such significance to the security of our country, and of Europe more widely, has not attracted the participation of more Members.
	I agree with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), that we face a very serious situation. My excellent hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my—also excellent—hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) were right to have been inspirational in setting up the Coalition for Peace through Security. Its work during the cold war contributed to the understanding in the United Kingdom of the need to face up to the Russian threat. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said about our not making threats that we cannot fulfil, and not offering NATO membership to countries that we are not prepared to send our children to defend and put their lives on the line for.
	I agree with much of that, but my hon. Friends were instrumental in establishing the Coalition for Peace through Security, whereas we face a threat to our security and a threat to peace. I do not know whether anybody saw the BBC programmes on the “37 Days” leading up to the war. I normally fall asleep watching such things, but I was absolutely riveted during the programmes, because the language of the conversations 100 years ago was the same as the language we are using in this place and in the corridors of power today.
	It worries me that we might be in real danger of sleepwalking into some sort of very substantial regional conflict. That is because our minds are on Syria, and on the Gulf and Iran. Not enough minds are on China, and on what it is doing in the South China sea, where it is building port facilities and runways on uninhabited atolls. We face a very turbulent world, which is the price we are paying for the fall of the Berlin wall: the balance of terror has been exchanged for a very unstable world.
	It is important that we take very seriously what is going on in Ukraine at the moment, and that we look at the Russians’ intentions. We know their intentions without having to look in a crystal ball, because they have been there historically. I have already mentioned what the Russians did to Ukraine in the 1930s: they starved the people who were providing them with their food. As recently as 2008, we saw what President Putin did in Georgia: he successfully provoked the Georgians—
	Saakashvili probably should not have risen to the bait, but he did—and the result was that the Russians invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia with complete impunity.
	We have seen what I warned would happen—forgive me for saying that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I could see what was going on in Crimea earlier this year. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough says about Ukraine having been part of Russia, and about the need not to poke Russia in the eye. Yes, Sevastopol is as important to the spirit of the Russian navy as Portsmouth is to the spirit of the Royal Navy, but that does not justify walking into Crimea and annexing part of another sovereign country, in explicit contravention of the Budapest agreement which was signed in 1994 by Boris Yeltsin, John Major and Bill Clinton. I accept that that agreement did not provide an article 5 guarantee of Ukraine’s borders, but it was a deal with the Ukrainian people in which Ukraine gave up a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons that could have threatened us all, in exchange for recognition of its borders. What are we to make of a man, in the form of President Putin, who has so flagrantly breached an agreement to which his country was a solemn party? Should we regard that as an aberration or a one-off, or as what I believe it to be, which is a complete lack of care for how Russia is viewed, and complete disregard for international norms?

Mike Gapes: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the pattern of behaviour that has formed over recent years. We probably had illusions a few years ago about where Russia might go, but sadly we have been very disappointed. He referred to the Budapest agreement. Does the way that Russia has abrogated those undertakings underline the fact that Russia also appears to be abrogating arms control agreements? Certainly the agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe is in tatters, and the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is now being questioned. There is no progress on strategic arms reduction, but rather a big build-up in Russia’s nuclear programme.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and it all militates in one simple direction: Mr Putin does not seem to care for international norms or that his country has in the past signed solemn and binding agreements. That is why we need to be on our guard.
	We have the examples of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Crimea. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, I worry that Putin’s objective is to create a land link with Crimea—at the moment I believe there is a five-mile gap across the Black sea. He has no intention of giving it up, so will he leave it as it is and reinforce it with air supplies or by sea? I believe there is a risk that he will go for Odessa, thereby denying the rest of Ukraine access to a port. If he moves further west he links up with Transnistria, leaving only a slight border between western Ukraine and Lviv, and around there with Poland, and the rest would be surrounded by Russia. He will then say to the EU, “There you are. You can have the rump of Ukraine,” and that will become isolated and perhaps not economically viable—I do not know. I do know,
	however, that we must be on our guard because Putin has acted with complete impunity—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made that point. But if you make threats and do not follow them up, what is your counterparty to suppose?
	The question that I go on to ask myself is this. There is Kaliningrad, that small Russian enclave on the Baltic coast, which is separated from the Russian motherland by a narrow strip of land between Latvia and Lithuania. If Mr Putin can with impunity do what he has done so far, what is to stop him saying, “I need a land link with Kaliningrad”? Article 5 of course stands in his way, but when I ask my friends, “Would you be prepared for your son or daughter to be sent off to go and fight for the Lithuanians or Latvians in the event that Mr Putin decides to annex their territory and create that land link with Kaliningrad?” I sense no appetite for that. The question is, “Where is the British national interest in that?” People do not understand the significance of article 5—even in this House, hon. Members have been far too flippant about considering offering NATO membership to other countries without considering the consequences.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South was absolutely right: the red line has to be the Baltic states. We must make that red line clear to Mr Putin. We must say, “Thus far and no further,” and it must be followed up. We saw what happened to President Obama when he drew a line in the sand that was promptly blown away by the wind.

Bob Stewart: I wanted to back up my hon. Friend on that point. The Baltic states are a red line, and I would support moves to permanently position some of our troops in those Baltic republics, because that is a clear indication of our intention—just as Berlin was, where I served for two years.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who brings immensely valuable personal experience to such discussions.
	I have referred to the Baltic states, but I should like to emphasise the point that was made by, I believe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South about the penetration of UK airspace by Russia. The Russians are doing that with increasing regularity, but for what purpose? Are they coming to look at our beautiful countryside? Are they inspecting our beaches with a view to, perhaps, acquiring some land in the lovely parts of Norfolk or Lincolnshire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough? What are they doing? What about the periscopes in the Irish sea? If anything demonstrates the folly of giving up our maritime patrol capability, it is the recent discussion about our dependence on a number of other countries to track Russian submarines.
	By their deeds shall ye know them. Mr Putin’s deeds are clear for us all to see. We therefore ignore them at our peril. That is the danger. What do we do? My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is right: there are areas in which we have a common interest with Russia. We share the threat from Islamic fundamentalism—Russia is a Christian country. In the early part of the 20th century, there were great links between the Lancashire textile industry and Russia, and those links were developing, but that all came to an end with the arrival of the communist state.
	I am pessimistic. I do not see how we can engage with Russia with all that Mr Putin’s history and his clear pattern of behaviour implies. We are in a difficult situation. It is perfectly clear that his economy is collapsing. He is doing like many in his condition do. We all remember President Galtieri of Argentina. He had troubles at home. What did he do? He went on a foreign excursion—he went for the Falkland Islands. We must bear in mind that, with the falling economy in Russia, there is a real risk that a policy of puffing up Russia’s status in the world through military action is enhancing Mr Putin’s standing with the Russian people.
	Are sanctions a substitute for more robust action? Are we, by imposing these sanctions, helping to suppress the Russian economy? Perhaps we should be engaging in a little bit more gunboat diplomacy of the kind I have advocated a number of times in this House. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, but I say to him that we cannot deal with a man with such an attitude and such behaviour, whose personal advertisements consist of him in martial positions, bare from the waste up with a bandolier around his shoulder and carrying a gun, or standing over some vanquished animal—you couldn’t make it up! That is what this guy is doing, and somehow we have to appeal to the Russian people and some of the younger politicians in Russia to get them to understand that this is not the way to behave. If we want security in Europe, we have to find a way forward, and invading other people’s sovereign territory is not the way to do it.

Bob Stewart: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I was listening to it from afar and was stirred to come, hot foot, to the Chamber by the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I therefore apologise if my speech, which will be short, is a bit disjointed.
	I am clear on Russia’s strategic military aim. My good and hon. Friends have alluded to it already and we are all talking along the same lines. In military terms, it is at the very least to secure a land corridor to Crimea. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), have suggested that the aim is to go as far as Odessa, but I think that the immediate strategic aim is to get to Crimea. The Black sea is crucial as it is a warm water entry and exit point. In the 1950s, as everyone in the Chamber knows, Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders never believed for a moment that Ukraine would not be a part of the Soviet Union or Russia. Khrushchev gave it away because of that assumption.
	As I mentioned in an intervention, 20 years ago, when I was chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I argued that we have to be very careful as we move eastwards. I was concerned at that time about the idea that the Baltic republics would become part of NATO, because militarily I find it very difficult to think of how to defend that situation, particularly when there is a Russian enclave to the west. That is a scenario we have already rehearsed in this debate.

Julian Lewis: I know time is limited, but I wanted to point out that the only way we can defend NATO countries that are out on a limb is by having tripwire forces. That would show a potential aggressor that,
	while they might occupy those countries, they would let themselves in for a very long war with other countries that would be able, eventually, to liberate them.

Bob Stewart: I totally agree with my hon. and very good Friend. That was exactly my role as a young officer in West Berlin—a British tripwire—in case the then Soviet Union decided to take over.

Gerald Howarth: Some tripwire!

Bob Stewart: I am afraid I totally agree—some tripwire indeed. A big stumbling block, although I was not quite as big then.

Julian Lewis: You were in spirit.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend.
	I slightly disagree with those who say that Putin alone is the problem. Putin is Russian, and he represents a Russian point of view, and the Russian attitude towards Ukraine comes from history. I totally take the point about how Stalin dealt with Ukraine, but fundamentally Ukraine is a sort of glacis plate—to use the old term—to protect mother Russia. I also understand that a lot of Russians feel antagonism towards NATO, because sometimes, looking at it from their point of view, it appears to have been quite aggressive.
	Over the past few years, Russian anxieties have been well stoked by western actions. As we have discussed, there has been talk of Ukraine joining NATO. I remember reading carefully through the EU negotiations with Ukraine, and there, in one of the sub-paragraphs, I saw a couple of lines about the EU sending troops to start exercises in that country. Nothing could have been a bigger red rag to the Russians. I got it from the House of Commons Library, and I am sure it was publicly obtainable.
	I totally support our policy of trying to stop Russian expansion, but despite the sanctions, which, as we have demonstrated, are biting, I suspect that de facto Russia will gain its land corridor, either by negotiation or by agreement, to Sevastopol. That link from Russia to Sevastopol and the Black sea fleet will be on dry land at some point. We will have to recognise that as a fact of life.

Pat McFadden: I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing this debate. He talked about the EU association agreement, Euromaidan, the shooting down of flight MH17, the sanctions and the response. I am pleased that he also raised the potential influence of the John Smith fellowship programme on the current generation of Ukrainian politicians. I say that as a former trustee of the John Smith Trust. It is an organisation I have had an association with since its foundation.
	During this debate, broadly speaking we have heard two views. We have heard the view represented by the hon. Members for Maldon and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that this has been an outrageous breach of territorial integrity that requires a strong response and which we cannot allow to stand. We have also heard the alternative view, put most forcefully by
	the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that we should see this from the Russian point of view. Others perhaps fell somewhere between those two views.
	I always hesitate to differ from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but I do not agree with this metaphor about poking the bear with a stick. The problem with the metaphor is that countries are not bears, but knowledgeable institutions; they know the rules and they know about borders and histories, but the bear does not. I do not think the analogy sticks, therefore, and so I do not think we can absolve Russia of its responsibilities by using that analogy.
	There are few more urgent issues facing us than what has been unfolding in Ukraine over the past year. The hon. Member for Maldon reminded us in the most stark way that here on the continent of Europe, a state’s territorial integrity has been systematically undermined by the fomenting, arming and backing of Russian separatists. Crimea has been annexed and parts of eastern Ukraine are effectively beyond the reach of the Ukrainian state. This destabilisation has continued, despite the Minsk agreement reached a short time ago. All of that is taking place against a deepening economic crisis for Ukraine, with a newly elected Government struggling to grip these twin security and economic crises. Beyond Ukraine, as has been referenced several times in the debate, there have been a number of incidents, such as transgressions of airspace, that remind us of how things were in the past. Of course, this situation dominated the recent G20 summit.
	What is happening in Ukraine poses major challenges for us relating to security, stability and values. We cannot simply hope that it goes away. The first challenge relates to foreign policy itself. No one wants further to inflame a conflict with Russia, yet its actions in Ukraine cannot go unanswered. That is why it is right that both the European Union and the United States have imposed sanctions. Unity on those sanctions is essential, and we had a debate about them at the beginning of their imposition. It is important that states set aside short-term economic interests in order to communicate to Russia that it cannot do what it would wish, which is to divide and rule and pick off one state after another. Unity is key, and we must resolve to maintain the sanctions and to increase them, if necessary. In his response, I hope the Minister will clarify what further options on sanctions are under consideration at EU level, and what talks have taken place with the United States about differences between the sanctions regimes agreed at EU level and those operated by the United States.
	The unified European response has been important, and it serves as a reminder, if one were needed, that there is a security dimension to EU membership and that by standing together we can be stronger in the face of what Russia is doing in the Ukraine. Of course NATO serves as the main alliance for our defence, and recent statements from a number of leaders reiterating their support for article 5 are welcome. However, it is also the case that the EU as well as NATO can use its collective leverage and its adherence to democratic values to resist land grabs and aggression. If this dimension is not always clear in our domestic debates here in the United Kingdom, it is certainly clear to many former Warsaw Pact countries, which regard EU membership, at least in part, as important in protecting them.
	Now we know that there are politicians in this country who admire Mr Putin and what he has done. The UKIP leader has said that Putin is the politician he most admires. He has attacked some for their stance on Ukraine, but not Mr Putin. In fact, he has accused the west of “playing war games” in Ukraine. He is not the only nationalist leader who has expressed admiration for Mr Putin. We have also had Mr Salmond saying he admires “certain aspects” of Mr Putin’s policies. The state-owned “Russia Today” channel has written of the hopes it has invested in Mr Farage and his desire to see Britain leave the EU. Let me quote:
	“In such a scenario, there are possibilities for Russian-British rapprochement on many levels”.
	It also said:
	“A UK exit from the EU could mean a dilution of the famed Trans-Atlantic alliance between Washington and London.”
	Perhaps it s incumbent on all of us, particularly those who desire such a scenario, to take account of who will be cheering if they get what they wish for.

Mike Gapes: That does not just apply to people in this country, does it? Marine Le Pen has been bankrolled by Putin’s supporters, and far-right and nationalist groups in Hungary—Fascist groups—have also been given support by Putin.

Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the recent £7 million loan to the French National Front party, and to return us to the question of who would cheer if the European Union were to fall apart at the hands of nationalist movements and parties. For the rest of us, such comments and actions are a reminder that we should not be cavalier in dismissing the importance of the security side of a strong and united European Union which believes in democracy and freedom, and stands opposed to Russian aggression. That is well understood by Angela Merkel, who, a few days ago, told Welt am Sonntag:
	“Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine are three countries in our eastern neighbourhood that have taken sovereign decisions to sign an association agreement with the EU”.
	She added:
	“Russia is creating problems for all three of these countries”.
	We cannot regard those countries’ actions as poking the bear with a stick. They have a right to sign such agreements if they wish.

William Cash: I want to ask a very simple question, namely whether and to what extent the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is necessary to take action along the lines of that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Does he think that the European Union will actually decide that it will regain Crimea, and if so, how? Does he also think that we will effectively back up the threats that are being made with real action?

Pat McFadden: I think that the unified European Union response on sanctions has been helpful in that context, but, as I have said, NATO is our principal source of collective defence. Let me also say to my hon. Friend that if he secures the policy for which he has worked for many years, he should bear in mind who will be cheering most in the context that we are currently discussing.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pat McFadden: I need to make some progress, and allow the Minister to wind up.
	The issue between Ukraine and Russia is not the only relevant factor. We should also consider the economic health and the strength of democracy in Ukraine itself. Of course those issues are related, because as long as Russia backs the separatists in the east, it will be all the more difficult for Ukraine to recover and stabilise economically. Indeed, as well as the geopolitical aim that was referred to by the hon. Member for Beckenham, it may be a Russian aim never to allow Kiev to have full economic control of the east.
	Ukraine has a new President and a new Parliament, and they have the urgent task of not only defending the country’s territorial integrity, but stabilising the economy and delivering honest government. There has been a 7% contraction in Ukraine’s GDP this year, and inflation is running at around 22%. The IMF now believes that, on top of the $17 billion aid package that was announced in April this year, a further $15 billion is needed. The Ukrainian economy is in deep trouble, and in urgent need of stabilisation.
	In governance terms, too, the country needs both reform and help, and Britain could play a valuable role in that regard. In the early 2000s, this country offered help to new democracies of eastern Europe in the form of advice on and assistance in the running of Ministries, robust budgeting, and the transparency of actions. That help was valuable and important to those countries at the time. Would the Minister consider offering similar help to Ukraine at this difficult time—if it has not already been offered—so that it can improve its governance, enhance transparency, and increase confidence in the democratic process?
	The situation both within Ukraine and between Ukraine and Russia poses great dangers for stability and for peace. A huge amount of commitment and vigilance has gone into developing a network of states that do not transgress one another’s borders and do not foment nationalist and separatist movements within states. We defend this settlement and realise its value.
	Of course there is potentially a different future for relations between Russia and other European states. Russia could cease aggression. It could let Ukraine choose its own path. It could respect the territorial integrity of other states. That path would lead to the lifting of sanctions, it would improve conditions for the Russian people, and it would gain Russia greater respect in the world. So we should be firm, we should be resolute in helping, and we should offer our assistance to Ukraine in terms of the sanctions and the governance help I have set out, but we should also be clear that this alternative future remains open to Russia and that it is far preferable to the current direction of relations between us.

David Lidington: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing the debate and, indeed, on the commitment he has shown in this House for some time—and well before the current crisis arose—to
	understanding Ukraine, its people and its political priorities. I also thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate.
	I want to start the substance of my remarks with Ukraine, because it seems to me that any fair appraisal of the diplomatic crisis we face needs to start with the truth that Ukraine today is an independent sovereign state with a democratically elected president and Parliament and internationally recognised borders, and is entitled, not only morally but in terms of international law, to take its own decisions about its national future.
	Furthermore, that sovereignty, that independence and those borders were recognised by Russia itself in treaties that both accompanied and followed the break-up of the USSR. Those borders included Crimea within Ukraine, and until the armed intervention by Russia at the beginning of this year—an intervention, we should remind ourselves, that the Russians persistently denied almost to the day when they announced the award of medals to the soldiers who had served in Crimea—no territorial claim was made over the years since the independence of Ukraine.
	The irony of the Russian intervention is that it has reinforced a sense of Ukrainian identity and Ukrainian nationalism not only, and most obviously, in the west of the country, but also in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine where those feelings were more muted. I saw something of that myself when I was in Dnipropetrovsk earlier this year.
	Nor am I persuaded by the argument that Russia has somehow reacted to provocation by either the European Union or NATO. President Poroshenko has made it clear that he has no intention of even applying for membership of NATO, and his Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin made it clear at the most recent meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council that, while Ukraine wished to move towards NATO standards in terms of the effectiveness of its armed forces, this was going to take Ukraine many, many years to accomplish.
	As for the idea that there has somehow been EU provocation, let us remind ourselves that the negotiations for an association agreement started as far back as 2007, during the term of President Yushchenko. They were carried through by President Yanukovych, who is never normally accused of being a foe of Russia. When I was in Ukraine in October 2013, I talked to very senior members of the Yanukovych Administration who assured me that the President had decided that that association agreement was what he wanted to conclude.
	We need to be clear about what Russia is attempting to do. It is now attempting to prevent Ukraine from successfully building a unified, democratic society based on the rule of law. Rather, its intention—to judge from its actions—appears to be to try to keep Ukraine weak, divided, corrupt and dependent on Russia to determine what its international alignments and mode of internal self-government should be.
	Under successive British Governments, we have encouraged and supported Russia to move closer to the values that have underpinned peace and prosperity since the end of the cold war. That is why the United Kingdom has supported the admission of Russia to the G8 and the World Trade Organisation and looked forward to its admission to the OECD. But now, under President Putin, we have witnessed a severe decline in support for
	those values, a crackdown on civil society and other voices of freedom and independence inside Russia, and a rejection of that offer of partnership. There are clear signs, too, that Russia is not prepared to see its neighbours move in that direction either—and not just Ukraine.
	Reference has been made during the debate to the events in Georgia in 2008, but in 2014 alone we have seen increased Russian meddling in the internal affairs of Moldova, the description by President Putin of Kazakhstan as “not a proper state”, the abduction by Russians of an Estonian official from inside Estonian territory—the man is still being detained in prison in Moscow—and the seizure on the high seas by Russia of a Lithuanian fishing vessel, which remains in Murmansk and has not been returned to its Lithuanian owners. We have also seen the interruption of gas supplies to Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. That has been attributed to technical problems, but I think it is a political signal that the Russian Government were unhappy with the reverse flow of gas supplies to—

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I do not have time.
	Those actions are based on a doctrine enunciated by the Kremlin: Russia has the right to intervene wherever it chooses when it claims that it is doing so in support of Russian speakers or ethnic Russians. Like hon. Members on both sides of the argument today, I believe strongly that there is a difference in terms of a defence commitment between NATO allies, where article 5 applies, and between friendly countries that are not part of the NATO alliance. Let us be in no doubt that the enunciation of that doctrine—of that right of intervention—was calculated to sow fear in the Baltic states, and it did so very successfully. Thankfully, it also resulted in a determined response from NATO and the deployment of additional NATO forces on exercises and patrols in the Baltic region.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I am sorry, but time is very short indeed.
	We know that Ukraine needs support, and the United Kingdom has already spent money on a range of technical assistance programmes to support reforms of financial and economic governance, including tackling corruption. Through our conflict pool, we are also providing a range of programmes, including support for the reform of the Ukrainian armed forces and the supply of non-lethal equipment, as well as support for the OSCE special monitoring mission.
	To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), under the conflict security and stability fund we will improve on our record next year with a particular focus on defence and security reform and constitutional and public sector reform, and on the battle against organised crime and corruption in Ukraine. In my meetings this week with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and with Mayor Klitschko, I made it clear that we welcomed an approach from the Ukrainian authorities in relation to other areas in which they might welcome United Kingdom know-how and technical assistance.
	I want to return briefly to the subject of Ukraine’s Euro-integration aspirations and the need for reform. We have a substantial stake, as do other European countries, in Ukraine’s future, through €11 billion in the EU assistance package and a $17 billion International Monetary Fund loan. The EU-Ukraine association agreement represents a clear public commitment by both the EU and Ukraine to a deep relationship and close co-operation. It would be a great mistake for President Putin to see that agreement as a threat. A strong and prosperous Ukraine can only be in Russia’s interest, just as a strong and prosperous Poland has proved to be since the recovery of democracy in that country.
	I was asked about sanctions. The answer is that our judgment about sanctions will depend upon Russia’s actions. If the Minsk agreement is implemented in full—if we see an end to the Russian reinforcements of the separatists, we start to see the withdrawal of Russian forces, we see Ukraine getting back control of its borders and the OSCE monitors able to deploy, and we see a genuine ceasefire—at that point perhaps we should consider whether any relaxation of sanctions might be appropriate. But, equally, if we see further military aggression, the EU has done a fair amount of contingency planning for the possibility of further sectoral economic sanctions. The Prime Minister personally and Ministers and officials at all levels are engaged with that work and in work to try to make sure that, despite different systems on the two sides of the Atlantic, there is coherence between the sanctions policy of the United States and that of the EU. I believe we have been able to deliver on that.
	I wish to make it clear that our aim is not to cripple the Russian economy—the structural challenges that the Russian economy faces will do that. Russia needs to address those rather than focus on military intervention in its southern neighbour. Our aim is to exert a proportionate and reversible cost for Russia’s illegal actions and to persuade the Russian leadership that this crisis is better resolved through diplomatic means. I agree with those who have said that isolation is also not the answer either; we need dialogue with Russia to resolve this crisis. That is why the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have continued to engage with their counterparts in Russia, and are committed to doing so.
	Going forward, we will offer our support to the new coalition Government in Ukraine, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as they need all the support they can get. We will help them with their reform programme and will monitor progress on their commitments and obligations tied to the association agreement, the related EU assistance package and the IMF loan. We will help to strengthen Ukraine’s economy, through technical assistance, to allow for better economic management and we will help Ukraine to address its energy security, through its need to modernise its systems and become more efficient and self sustainable.
	We do not seek a hostile relationship with Russia. Indeed, for 23 years the United Kingdom has tried to build a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Moscow, and we do not give up on that aim. But, equally, we have to be clear-headed about the actions that we have seen Russia take, particularly in the past 12 months, and act upon the basis of what Russia has
	actually done rather than upon promises that, so far, have not been implemented in practice. We will support Ukraine, we hope for a better relationship with Russia, but we must be realistic in preparing ourselves for a relationship with Moscow that, I fear, is going to be more difficult and more fractious than we had hoped. That is the choice of Russia’s leaders, who at the moment have chosen to treat Europe and the transatlantic alliance as a strategic adversary, rather than, as we had hoped, a potential partner for the future.

John Whittingdale: There is very little time left, so I will just thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. We may have come to this issue from slightly different perspectives, but there is no great disagreement between us. I did not suggest at any point that Ukraine should join NATO; indeed, I would have reservations about that at this time. Obviously, considerations for the Baltic countries that are in NATO are different from those that are not. What I do believe in is the right of the Ukrainian people to choose their own future, and they have made absolutely clear what they want. Every single party elected to the Rada in the parliamentary elections recently supports Ukraine moving closer to Europe and adopting western values and the values of a free and democratic society. We have both moral and economic obligations to help them. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said. I hope that the message will go out that this country supports the people of Ukraine and wants to help them achieve that future.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

PETITIONS

Housing Development in Cheadle

William Cash: This is the petition of 884 residents in Cheadle in my constituency of Stone in Staffordshire in respect of housing development in Cheadle.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,
	Declares that residents of Cheadle oppose excessive levels of housing development; further that the Petitioners believe that the
	prospect of new site allocation plans is simply unacceptable; further that the Petitioners believe that permitting for 1,320 houses up to 2031 is still well above local demand and unworkable; further that the Petitioners believe that there is much opportunity to develop nearby regenerating sites and the Potteries with affordable housing in the heart of existing road, rail and canal infrastructure, while protecting the environment and agriculture; further that recent housing proposals have been submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to build up to 190 houses on land off Thorley Drive in Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the Thorley Drive site is inappropriate and it is currently a group of fields used, for example, for grazing; further that the Petitioners believe that the access to the Thorley Drive site is dangerous as it is already very difficult for drivers to get out of the end of Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the surrounding road network cannot support the increasing number of cars and traffic which relate to developing the town with housing completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocation of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation of 240 dwellings north of Cheadle; and further that the Petitioners believe that there are not the facilities or the infrastructure in place for the proposed housing.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to intervene in this matter to ensure that housing proposals that sit outside of the currently identified sites for completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocations of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation for 240 dwellings north of Cheadle are rejected over the planning period until 2031 and further that the Petitioners request that the House urges the local council to reduce the housing allocation for Cheadle, preferably by moving a percentage to the Potteries and with no further development of Greenfield sites.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001411]

NHS Dental Services in Walsall South

Valerie Vaz: The petition is from the residents of Park Hall, Walsall and others. A similar petition has been signed by 437 people.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners wish to be able to access NHS dental services at The Dentist Surgery, Liskeard Road, Walsall. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage NHS England to award an NHS dental services contract to The Dentist Surgery in Walsall.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001410]

NHS SERVICES (DEVON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Ben Bradshaw: Last week, on 3 December, the Northern, Eastern and Western clinical commissioning group, responsible for commissioning health care on behalf of the population of Devon, excluding Torbay and south Devon, announced a package of cuts, restrictions and the ending of some treatments and operations altogether. The decisions included denying all planned operations to smokers and people with a body mass index of more than 35, the issuing of hearing aids to be restricted to one ear, and cataract operations to be restricted to one eye. Some treatments and operations were to be stopped completely, including certain varicose vein treatment, shoulder surgery and earwax removal.
	In her letter to me, the chief officer of NEW Devon CCG, Rebecca Harriott, indicated that this was just the start. She wrote:
	“Other measures are still being considered. Some will be for the longer term, but some will be announced in the coming months. We anticipate that there will be further measures for a full or partial suspension identified during December and for implementation from January.”
	This constitutes the wholesale rationing of health care in Devon—rationing in the NHS on an unprecedented scale, as well as a return to the worst ever postcode lottery. It means that people in Devon—or most of Devon—who have paid and still pay their taxes in exactly the same way as everyone else in England will not be able to get the operations and treatment they need because of where they live. People over the border in Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall still will, as will those in Devon who are registered with a GP in Torbay or south Devon.
	This is how the Royal College of Surgeons, the professional body that represents hospital doctors, reacted to Devon’s announcement:
	“Access to routine surgery should always be based on an individual’s clinical need. The Government has been clear that restricting clinically necessary treatment on the basis of financial considerations is unacceptable. We urge the Department of Health and NHS England to review the situation in Devon.”
	So my first question to the Minister when she responds is: will she review what is happening in Devon, as the Royal College has requested?
	The professional bodies and charities representing the hard of hearing and partially sighted have also responded with outrage. Britain’s main deaf charity, Action on Hearing Loss, said that it is appalled by what is happening, pointing out that the decisions were made without any consultation with local people, health care professionals or the wider hearing loss sector. Paul Brecknell, its chief executive, said:
	“This is a service that’s been available since the birth of the NHS. Hearing loss is a serious health issue, which, if unmanaged can lead to isolation, dementia and mental health problems”.
	My constituent, Mark Worsfold, was born profoundly deaf and works as a radar scientist at the Met Office in Exeter. He e-mailed me describing the new policy as
	“morally, legally and financially indefensible”
	and he went on:
	“I rely entirely on lip reading for communication. What many people don’t realise is how much of lip reading is guess work. Hearing aids can make the difference between highly educated guesswork and incomprehension. Having just one hearing aid doesn’t mean your lip reading ability is halved, it can destroy it completely.”
	The National Deaf Children’s Society told me that the decisions made are “unthinkable and entirely unethical”, and called for their immediate reversal and the publication of the evidence on which the decisions were based. That leads me to my second question to the Minister. Will she publish, or will she require the CCG to publish, all the clinical evidence on which these decisions have been based?
	The Royal College of Ophthalmologists condemned the decision to ration cataract operations to just one eye. A senior consultant told me that it is likely to cause people who are losing their sight to fall, particularly on stairs, and will lead to a big increase in hip fractures, one of the main reasons for pressure on hospitals, again costing the NHS more in the end.
	On the proposed weight restriction, I was contacted by a constituent, Kate Bolsover, a former NHS nurse and care assistant, who said the following:
	“I’m overweight due to having arthritis and severe issues with my spine that require heavy medication that increases weight gain. I’m doubly incontinent because of abuse from my ex-partner and I need an operation to fix that, but because of these cuts I won’t be able to have my operation, and without it I won’t be able to go out. I feel doubly discriminated against by an NHS I worked so many hours for with passion.”
	Medical experts and health care professionals have told me that they believe the cuts and rationing announced in Devon breach the NHS constitution and Devon’s own CCG guidelines. These state that access to services should be governed by the principle of equal access for equal clinical need. They also believe that the cuts and rationing breach the clauses on discrimination in the NHS constitution, and the duty contained in it and the CCG’s own local framework to reduce health inequalities.
	A number of people have told me that they are preparing legal challenges. The weight restriction alone, according to figures provided by the CCG, could affect as many as 11,000 people a year, and the smokers’ restriction even more than that. One smoker from Exeter e-mailed me this morning to say:
	“I am a smoker yet I could be denied an operation here in Devon if I don’t give up. As a taxpayer, surely this must be illegal. I can’t refuse to pay my taxes, yet I can be refused to use a service I help fund. This is so wrong.”
	Even the Minister’s own Conservative colleague, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, stung perhaps by suggestions that he might fail Devon’s new weight criteria, has told my local newspaper, the Express and Echo, that he believes that what is happening in Devon is “anathema and un British”. Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, told the Health Committee this week that he had “reservations” about what is happening in Devon. He said that all health organisations need to abide by the NHS constitution, and that the Government could step in if they do not.
	So my next question to the Minister, which I have repeatedly asked in letters to Ministers and NHS England but to which I have had no reply is this: what assessment has she made of the compliance of what is happening in Devon with the NHS constitution? It requires equal access based on clinical need, it forbids discrimination
	and it requires health inequalities to be addressed. If when she studies what is happening in Devon in full she or Mr Stevens agree with me that it does breach the NHS constitution, will she or NHS England intervene? Perhaps she already has, because less than an hour before this debate was due to start, a letter pinged into my computer inbox from Devon CCG announcing that it was dropping the weight and smoking proposals. That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Who says Parliament counts for nothing? However, this is no way to run our precious NHS.
	I pay tribute to all those who have helped me and others with the campaign against this rationing, although the battle is not over yet. The rest of the rationing proposals remain in place, and that brings me to the underlying financial crisis facing the NHS in Devon.
	In February, NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority jointly announced they were sending in consultants to examine and analyse the mounting financial crisis facing Devon NHS. Devon was one of 11 so-called “financially challenged” NHS organisations to be investigated in this way. The work was supposed to find out the underlying reasons for the particularly serious problem that we have in Devon. Was there something that the Devon NHS was doing wrongly? Were there areas where it could work better or more efficiently? Were there other underlying factors, such as the cost of caring for Devon’s disproportionately large and growing elderly population, which meant that Devon was underfunded in comparison with other parts of the country?
	In spite of asking for months now for details of that investigation, Ministers and NHS England have failed to provide it. They still have not done so. Instead, the Minister’s fellow Minister, the Liberal Democrat right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), had the gall to go on BBC Radio Devon this morning and blame the £430 million deficit and resulting cuts and rationing on our local NHS spending money unwisely. When the Minister replies, will she explain what he meant by that? Where has Devon been spending money unwisely? Is she really saying that unwise spending decisions have caused a deficit this huge? This is exactly what the consultants’ investigation into Devon and the other financially challenged trusts was supposed to tell us. Will she now publish the detailed findings of that investigation so that we can know the truth?
	As well as the cuts and rationing to treatment and operations that I have already outlined, Devon faces the closure of community hospitals and the highly successful and extremely well used walk-in centre in Exeter is threatened with closure. The Prime Minister and the Health Secretary keep claiming that they want better access to GPs, but things are getting worse. The Sidwell street walk-in centre in Exeter is a fantastic and vital resource for hard-pressed patients who find it difficult or impossible to see a GP at a time that suits them. Its loss would simply add to the pressure on already overstretched local GPs and my local A and E department.
	That leads me to the impact of the NHS funding crisis in Devon on the acute sector. My excellent local hospital, the Royal Devon and Exeter, has during the last 15 years or so been one of the best managed and best performing hospitals in England. It recently and unusually missed the Government’s own watered down maximum waiting time for accident and emergency. It is
	also running a large deficit for the first time ever. When announcing the hospital’s intention to go into the red, its first-class chief executive, Angela Pedder, implied that if it did not, she would not be able to guarantee safe care.
	We cannot debate the current situation in the NHS in Devon without mentioning mental health. The problem of inordinately long waits and the shortage of beds for young people has been raised by me and others in this place for the past three years. It was highlighted again recently when the deputy chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police tweeted his frustration at having to accommodate a young girl with mental illness in a police cell for two nights. When I asked the Health Secretary about that last week, he blamed poor communication. He was wrong. The girl was taken into police custody from a general hospital paediatric ward, where she should never have been in the first place, because there was no appropriate children’s mental health bed available for her. The reason it took several days to find her a bed is that she had been turned down for one by private sector providers who, under their contract, do not have to accept patients.
	That case is not an isolated example. In the last year alone for which figures are available, 30 children with mental health problems in Devon were taken into police custody while suffering a crisis because there were no beds available. When beds have been found, young people have been sent as far away as Newcastle because there are none closer to Devon. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in full exactly what the Government are doing—not in the future, but now—to address the scandal of mental health provision for children in Devon. In researching for this speech, I learnt that at any one time there are between two and five children with mental health problems on the paediatric ward of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in my constituency because there is nowhere else for them to go. That is totally unacceptable.
	I would also like to ask the Minister about concerns I have picked up about how well the various NHS bodies in Devon are working together. There seem to be particular concerns about the relationship between Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and other NHS organisations in Devon. That was illustrated recently when Northern Devon decided to centralise stroke services in the rural market town of Ottery St Mary, rather than near the acute provision in Exeter, which is what the clinicians and all of the other organisations involved wanted.
	Until a few moments before this debate, I had not received a reply to any of my letters, but several came pinging into my inbox just before. It is simply not good enough for MPs to have to go through the lottery of securing an Adjournment debate before they can get reasonable responses from health organisations and Ministers. I have now received a response to my letter to the head of the Trust Development Authority, David Flory, but it not particularly reassuring. He states:
	“The relationship between Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and North, East and West Devon Clinical Commissioning Group has been strained over the last two years. In 2013, arbitration was required to agree the 2013/14 contract and both parties needed mediation to address in-year issues.”—
	it sounds like a divorce—
	“The need for formal dispute resolution is often a symptom of deeper issues with local relationships.”
	I have been raising concerns about that for months. What have the Government being doing about it?
	I asked for this debate because of my growing frustration about the fact that the people of Devon, other Members of Parliament and I were not getting answers to the basic questions we were asking. As I have said, my computer has been pinging all afternoon with sudden responses to letters I sent weeks or even months ago, for which I am grateful. Of course, the most dramatic of them has been the climbdown by NEW Devon CCG with regard to banning operations for people who are obese or who smoke. The Minister, when she replies, might like to tell the House what role, if any, she has played in helping it to reach that climbdown.
	However, the underlying financial crisis that I have spoken about today has not been addressed. If the CCG is now not going to do the things that it had already announced it would do, what is it going to do instead? It has already said that this is just the beginning and that more proposals for rationing and stopping treatment will be set out this month and next. Until the underlying financial problem is addressed and we know why there is a particular problem in Devon, it will not be resolved to the satisfaction of my constituents. I hope that the Minister can give answers to me and to the people of Devon now.

Jane Ellison: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate. He is right to say that Parliament is intended to bring these very important topics to the fore. In securing this debate, he rightly brings a very important subject to the Floor of the House, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. It is a matter of great importance to him and his constituents, but also to other Members in the area. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), as a Minister in the Foreign Office, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), as a Government Whip, are unable to speak in the debate, but let it be noted for the record that they are here in attendance, representing their constituents, and have shown a keen interest in the matter and discussed it with me, as has the right hon. Gentleman.
	I start by commending the work carried out every day by those working in our NHS, particularly in the area of Devon that we are discussing. At every opportunity in this House, we should, particularly as we approach the Christmas season, pay tribute to the fantastic work of our front-line NHS workers.
	I turn to the service changes to Northern, Eastern and Western Devon—NEW Devon—clinical commissioning group. As the right hon. Gentleman set out, the CCG is facing significant financial pressures, with an end-of-year deficit of £14.5 million for 2013-14 and a similar deficit predicted for this financial year. To address these pressures, the CCG proposed some changes, which it described as “temporary”, to some of the services it commissions in the area. On 3 December, as he said, it announced that
	it was taking urgent measures to prioritise essential services and the requirements laid out in the NHS constitution.
	We recognise that CCGs have to take resourcing decisions based on the needs of their local community, but blanket restrictions on procedures that do not take account of the individual health care needs of patients are unacceptable. Decisions on treatments, including suitability for surgery, should be made by clinicians, based on the individual clinical needs of patients. The Deputy Prime Minister made that point in response to the right hon. Gentleman at Prime Minister’s questions, and I reiterate it now. The right hon. Gentleman has given some very serious and moving examples of patients who would be affected by such blanket restrictions. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines represent best practice, and we expect NHS organisations to take them fully into account as they design services for their local populations and work towards full implementation over time.
	With regard to the latest position, things have moved quite rapidly in the past 24 hours, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined. NEW Devon CCG announced today that it will no longer compel patients to undergo weight loss or stop smoking ahead of routine surgery. It confirmed that patients will instead be offered evidence-based guidance, as we would expect, on the benefits of weight loss and smoking cessation as part of their health care. As a former Health Minister, he would, like me, draw attention to the fact that both those things are generally desirable in terms of good health and the efficacy of treatment. The CCG also confirmed that it would not be restricting in vitro fertilisation treatment or caesarean sections on non-medical grounds.
	In announcing its decision on weight loss and stopping smoking, the CCG confirmed that it will continue with a series of other measures that have already been announced, but those will be subject to public consultation in the new year, where appropriate. Discussions are under way to confirm the extent of that consultation. Today I had a telephone discussion with some of the key people involved, including the chief officer of the CCG and the NHS area lead. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to take a full part in that consultation. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman indicated some of the areas that he will wish to explore in that consultation process.
	NHS England has confirmed that it is currently scrutinising the CCG’s proposals and is in close dialogue with it. That has been confirmed to the right hon. Gentleman, with a good level of detail, in a letter to him from the chief executive of NHS England, which I have had sight of. I hope that he has had that letter; I think he has.

Ben Bradshaw: indicated dissent.

Jane Ellison: If not, I apologise on behalf of NHS England. I was informed that the letter had been sent to him. I very much hope that it has pinged into his inbox by the time he returns to his office. If, by some chance, it has not reached him, I will certainly make sure that my office passes him a copy. I will also make sure that other right hon. and hon. Members who would want to have sight of the sentiments in the letter do have sight of them.
	NHS England has confirmed that it is currently scrutinising the CCG’s proposals. They are in close dialogue and I confirmed that myself in my conference call today. NHS England is seeking assurance that the proposals are in the best interest of patients, which we would all echo; that they are based on sound evidence, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded; and that they are subject to a well-planned process, including, if appropriate, public consultation.
	On the next steps on financial issues—the right hon. Gentleman put this in the context of a longer-term concern—the CCG has stated that its financial projections are being updated in the light of the current pressures and the five-year system-wide assessment of a potential finance gap between resources and the cost of health demand, which the CCG considers will be £430 million, which is a considerable sum.
	Devon was one of the 11 financially challenged health economies to be provided with intensive support by NHS England. I understand that the report of that work is due to be published shortly, along with planning guidance, which will be a joint publication with the NHS Trust Development Authority, Monitor and NHS England. The right hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait to see that detailed piece of work on the broader, long-term picture.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the Minister have any idea why it has taken quite so long? Did the CCG drop its smoking and obesity proposals before or after her telephone conversation with it?

Jane Ellison: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response to his first question, as I am not abreast of the detail. The letter to him from the chief executive of NHS England is dated the 10th, so I think that answers his second question. I apologise that he has not received notice, but discussions were under way prior to my phone call with the local NHS leads, during which we touched on the issue.
	As part of the work I was just referring to, an extensive, detailed analysis of services and costs in the NEW Devon health economy was undertaken. The NHS England area team director of finance has given significant support and challenge to the CCG to understand its financial position and to support the development of a financial recovery plan. The area team has also been engaged with the CCG through the quarterly assurance process and agreed a set of actions with time scales to improve the financial position.
	I stressed in my conversation today the urgency of the matter and the clearly enormous public and parliamentary interest in it. Parliamentarians have a very important role to play in being a bridge between health officials and the public and the constituents they represent, as reflected by the interest shown in this debate by Devon MPs. The CCG and NHS England will meet next week to consider the CCG’s medium to long-term financial plans. It is an important meeting and I have asked to be kept abreast of those developments.
	I will ask the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more detail on the mental health issues he has raised.
	The right hon. Gentleman has also raised concerns in the House and elsewhere about the walk-in centre. That is dealt with in some detail in Simon Stevens’s letter to him—I repeat my regret that he has not had sight of it—so if he has further concerns after reading it, he might want to raise them with the chief executive. However, he is, of course, always welcome to raise them with Ministers.
	To return to the central part of this debate, I reiterate that policies providing for blanket restrictions on treatments for particular classes of patients based on lifestyle characteristics are unacceptable, and various Ministers—including, as I have said, the Deputy Prime Minister at PMQs this week—have made that clear. Any general policy on prioritisation of services must be robust, evidence-based and justifiable. In addition, any general policy must take account and make provision for an individual’s clinical situation, an example of which was given by the right hon. Gentleman.
	CCGs have statutory duties to consult, inform or otherwise engage with the public about commissioning decisions, and duties to promote the involvement of individual patients in decisions about their care and treatment. We fully expect that the CCG will be mindful of those obligations when making any decisions. As I have said, I have stressed the importance of good communication, which is absolutely vital. I have had personal experience as a constituency MP, as well as a Health Minister, of communication not reaching the right people at the right time, resulting in confusion and sometimes distress for constituents and patients. It is therefore very important to get such things right, and I expect all local health economy leads to be extremely mindful of the need to involve local parliamentarians and other democratically elected people.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the Minister accept the importance not only of good communication, but of functional relationships? The letter from David Flory about the dysfunctionality of the relationship between Northern Devon and the rest of the heath economy in Devon is very worrying.

Jane Ellison: Functioning relationships are absolutely key to long-term planning. We have all recently seen the “Five Year Forward View” from NHS England, and the Government have expressed their support for the plans and intentions in that document. Co-operation and close working are at its heart, as they are at the heart of any local plans for the short, the medium and particularly the medium to long term. Functioning relationships between different parts of the health economy, as well as between the elected Members in the area, are therefore vital.
	I feel confident that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to draw attention to that need. Indeed, throughout the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon have nodded in assent in relation to the importance of good communication.
	Important meetings are coming up imminently, and I expect there to be good communication on their outcomes. I have asked to be kept abreast of them. Engagement with the public and others, including MPs, will take place next year on the issues that have to be consulted on.

Ben Bradshaw: I want to put it on the record that the obviously very important and long-awaited reply from NHS England is not one of the many e-mails that have pinged into my inbox today, so I would be grateful if the Minister ensured that I get it as soon as possible.

Jane Ellison: I feel sure that someone is already working on that, but as I say, we will try to get it to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, and to let other interested colleagues have sight of its sentiments.
	I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to engage with the consultation process, and to bring all their constituents’ communications to bear by feeding them into the consultation. I have asked to be kept abreast of those matters. As the right hon. Gentleman will see
	from the chief executive of NHS England’s response, this important matter is being taken extremely seriously both by Ministers and at the very top of NHS England, as well as by local health leaders.
	I hope that the outcome of the discussions and consultations will be a good one—as we require it to be—for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other members of the public in the area. We look forward to seeing how matters progress, and I again congratulate him on bringing this important matter to the Floor of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.